CrRev 1541 of 2018: Revision against Additional Session Judge Gorakhpur order rejecting discharge and quashing proceedings in murder/rioting case. Held no illegality or perversity found.
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.
1
Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1541 of 2018 Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash Alias Goli Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Singh,Subhash Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present revision has been preferred for quashing the order dated 23.3.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge Court No. 1, Gorakhpur in S. T. No. 253 of 2017, case crime no. 305/2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 452, 307, 352 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Shahpur, District Gorakhpur, whereby discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected as well as for quashing of the proceeding of aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the revision states that no offence is made out against the revisionist and discharge application of the revisionist has been illegally rejected.
Perusal of the order impugned shows that the court below while passing the order impugned has observed herein as under:
“ प्रथम सूचना िरिपोर्टर मे उल्लिखिल्ल ि खखित िखिकिया गया है िखिकि वादी रिणविखिवजय िसंह साइकिखिकिल रिैली किे समापन किे बाद िखिदनांकि 12.08.15 किोर् रिािखित्रि लगभग 7 बजे आवास गो र ्खिपुरि पहुँचा िखिकि समय लगभग 7.35 बजे 5 लोर्ग असलहे से लैस होर्किरि रिाइकफल व िखिपस्टल लेकिरि आए औरि उल्लसकिा गेट पीटने लगे, जब गेट खिोर्ला तोर् जान से मारिने किी िखिनयत से रिाइकफल वादी किे ऊपरि वोर्ल्ट किरिकिे दौड़ए। वादी जान बचाकिरि घरि मे भागा तोर् वे लोर्ग घरि मे भी घुस गए। वादी किी सुरिक्षा मे तैनात गनरि किे नीचे आने परि वे लोर्ग असलहा लहरिाते हुए जान से मारिने किी धमकिी देते हुए भाग गए। जाते हुए उल्लनमे से एकि व्यिखिक्ति ने किहा िखिकि उल्लसकिा नाम आिखिदत्य प्रताप िसंह है। गाड़ी किा नम्बरि वादी किे डराइकवरि द्वारिा नोर्ट िखिकिया गया। िखिववेचना किे उल्लपरिन्त अिखिभयुक्तिगणव चन्द्र प्रकिाश उल्लफर गोर्ली िसंह,
2
उल्लमेश चौधरिी, आिखिदत्य प्रताप िसंह, किृष्णवभान वमार उल्लफर किृष्णव मुरिारिी वमार, मुतुरजा पहलवान व पूरिकि आरिोर्प-पत्रि अजय ओझा किे िखिवरुद प्रेिखिषित िखिकिया गया।
पत्रिावली परि उल्लपलब्ध साक्ष्य किोर् दृष्टिखिष्टिगत रिखिते हुए मै इकस मत किी हूं िखिकि अिखिभयुक्तिगणव किे िखिवरुद आरिोर्प िखिवर ि चत किरिने हेतु पयारप्त साक्ष्य उल्लपलब्ध है।”
Thus, no illegality or perversity can be attributed with the findings as recorded in the order impugned.
Moreover, learned counsel for the revisionist has also failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 20.8.2019 Kuldeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application and continuing proceedings is liable to be quashed.
Whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial court are illegal or perverse.
Whether the revisionist has shown any illegality or perversity in the order impugned.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vipin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
