This Article 227 petition challenged the revision court's order framing a charge under Section 409 IPC. The High Court found no perversity and dismissed the petition as it lacked merit.
Petition dismissed with no order passed.
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. - 72
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9859 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kishore Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Bharat Singh Pal,Surendra Nath Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of petitioner.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This petition is directed against the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, XI, Court, Kanpur Nagar in Crl. Revision No. 77 of 2014 confirming the order framing the charge vide order dated 12.12.2013.
I have myself considered the revision, pleadings raised in the affidavit filed in support thereof and also grounds taken to assail the order passed in revision as well as order framing charge.
The order dated 12.12.2013 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 409 IPC discusses in detail material that were available before the court below and has come to conclude that from the evidence available on record in form of case diary containing all the documentary evidence, prima faice charge is made out under Section 409 IPC.
The Court sitting in revision, has confirmed the order framing charge besides the earlier order dated 1.10.2018, whereby the charges were already framed under Section 409, 406 , 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court has recorded categorical finding to the effect that due to inadvertent mistake, the charge could not earlier be framed under Section 409 IPC while initial charge was framed on 10.1.2011 in respect of Section , 406 , 420,467 and 468 and 471 IPC. The Court has considered the investigation report while confirming the charge under Section 409 IPC, I do not find any perversity in the order passed by court sitting in revision.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 10.1.2019 Sanjeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court while exercising revisional power under Article 227 finds perversity in the order framing charge under Section 409 IPC.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kishore Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
