Court No. 14 dismissed the criminal revision filed against the order summoning accused in a case under Sections 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The revisionist was absent during hearing. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's order.
Criminal revision dismissed; no infirmity found in the trial court's summoning order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 623 of 1994
Revisionist :- Ramesh Chandra And Other Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- B.N. Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to argue the case.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 25.01.1994 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 1187/1993, (Ram Kishun Vs. Harish Chandra and others), whereby accused/opposite has been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
From the perusal of impugned order, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by trial court.
Accordingly this revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.2.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court summoning the accused.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Chandra And Other
State And Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
