Dismissed

Ganesh Harijan v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2019CRLR/1260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenging an order rejecting a Section 156(3) application was dismissed. The Court held no illegality or perversity existed in the lower court's observation that the facts were false. The revisionist was directed to file a complaint with the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed; the revisionist directed to institute a complaint before the concerned Magistrate.

Ganesh Harijan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1260 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Ganesh Harijan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Prem Chand Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

None is present for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 despite service of notice.

¶6

Heard Sri Prem Chand Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court-1st, Maharajganj in Criminal Case No. 535 of 2018 (Ganesh Harijan Vs. Sheela Mishra and others), PS- Nichlaul, District-Maharajganj.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that order dated 11.10.2018 passed on the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is illegal and has been passed without applying the judicial mind. It is further submitted that learned trial court has illegally rejected the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. observing that application has been moved on the basis of false fact and no cognizable offence is made out.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid submission.

¶10

I have considered the rival submission made on behalf of parties and perused the record.

¶11

In this matter as is evident from the record, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected on 11.10.2018 observing that fact mentioned in the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are false.

¶12

Since, revisionist has opportunity to file a complaint and the same is maintainable despite rejection of the application Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, scrutinizing the entire facts and evidence available on record, no illegality, infirmity or perversity are found in the impugned order dated 11.10.2018.

¶13

Revision devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Revisionist may institute a complaint and it is expected that if such complaint is moved concerned Magistrate will entertain the same.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.8.2019/AKT

Ganesh Harijan v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Harijan v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruksana and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Kanchan Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others

Sumit @ Lallu Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fariyad Ansari and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shobha and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another