Criminal revision allows order rejecting discharge application because trial court failed to consider case record as mandatory under Cr.P.C. Parties directed to pass reasoned order within 60 days.
Order dated 20.2.2012 set aside; trial court directed to pass reasoned order considering record within 60 days.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 769 of 2012
Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Mishra And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bal Mukund, Smt. Arati Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,I.M.Khan
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.2.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 2011 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Mishra and others), P.S. Panki, District Kanpur Nagar whereby application of the revisionists for discharge was rejected only on the ground that learned Magistrate has summoned the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that impugned order has been passed in violation of Sections 226, 227, 228 Cr.P.C., which is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A., for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
From perusal of the order dated 20.2.2012, it is evident that learned trial court has not considered the record of the case and document submitted with the record, which is mandatory for framing of charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Order has been passed only on the ground that accused have been summoned for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, order passed by the learned trial court is against law, which is not sustainable.
Consequently, this criminal revision stands allowed and the order dated 20.2.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 458 of 2011 (State Vs. Vinay Kumar Mishra and others) is set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to pass reasoned and speaking order after considering record of the case and document submitted with the record therein within a period of sixty days from today.
Incharge, Computer Centre is directed to provide certified copy of this order today itself, to learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 2.5.2018 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of discharge application for only summoning the accused without considering the case record violates Sections 226, 227, and 228 Cr.P.C.
Whether the trial court ought to have considered the case record and documents before passing the discharge rejection order.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinay Kumar Mishra And Others
State Of U.P.
Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
