Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2018CRLR/5367/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, this single-judge court dismissed Ashok Kumar's challenge to the Special Judge's order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court held there was no illegal, improper, or jurisdictional error in dismissing the application due to lack of evidence. It emphasized that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings of facts

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed with the interim order, if any, stood vacated.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5367 of 2006

¶3

Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- R.D. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Rajesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of revisionist. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is being decided on merit.

¶6

This revision has been preferred by Ashok Kumar against State of U.P., Pradeep @ Gudda, Mool Shanker @ Yatendra, Pappu, Neeraj and Sunil @ Teetu challenging order dated 11.7.2006 passed by Special Judge(D.A.A.), Agra in Criminal Case No. Nil of 2006(Ashok Kumar vs. Pradeep @ Gudda and others) whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was dismissed.

¶7

From perusal of record, it transpires that an application was moved by the applicant with the prayer to register the case under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B IPC against opposite party Nos.2 to 6 namely, Pradeep @ Gudda, Mool Shanker @ Yatendra, Pappu, Neeraj and Sunil @ Teetu alleging that on 12.11.2005 at 6 P.M. Gaurav (son of complainant) was abducted for ransom and when they did not get ransom money, they killed him.

¶8

On this issue, police report was called for and in the police report, it has come that Gaurav died in the marriage party which he attended, after having received injuries in 'harsh firing' or explosion of bomb/firecracker and nobody killed him. The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.was moved after six months. On this issue, an affidavit was filed sworn by Sub Inspector, Police Station Khandauli, District Agra alongwith short counter affidavit and that is on record wherein it has been stated that there is no injury report or post-mortem report of the deceased on record. It has also been mentioned therein that socalled Gaurav was neither admitted in the hospital nor his postmortem was conducted.

¶9

From perusal of record, it also transpires that there was no evidence to allow the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and register a case against so-called accused/opposite party Nos. 2 to 6. Hence the application was dismissed by the Court below.

¶10

Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd., (2005) 12 SCC 502, State of Maharashtra Vs. Jag Mohan Singh Kuldip Singh, 2004 (50) ACC 889 (SC) and Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107 , has held that while the appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the original court's jurisdiction as a appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence is concerned, the revisional court has simply to confine to the legality and propriety of the findings and as to whether the subordinate court acted within it's jurisdiction. A revisional court has no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of facts recorded by the Magistrate and impose and substitute it's own findings. Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C. confer only limited power on revisional court to the extent of satisfying the legality, propriety or regularity of the proceedings or orders of the lower court and not to act like appellate court for other purposes including the recording of new findings of fact on fresh appraisal of evidence.

¶11

This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

The revision is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.10.2018 P.P.

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mainuddin Vs State of U.P.

Kamal and Tohers Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyazul Arfeen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Sahai Vs State of U.P.

Jasvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahid and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others