Dismissed

Mulayam Singh and Another v. State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2019CRLR/26/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 26 of 1997, the High Court dismissed the revision filed by Mulayam Singh against an order remanding a case under Sections 418, 504, and 506 I.P.C. to the Magistrate for disposal pursuant to Section 203 Cr.P.C. The bench found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the lower courts' orders.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed for lack of merit; no interference with the order remanding the case to the Magistrate.

Mulayam Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved on 03.01.2019

¶2

Delivered on 15.03.2019

¶3

Court No. - 23

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 26 of 1997

¶5

Revisionist :- Mulayam Singh & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.& Others Counsel for Revisionist :- B.R.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶7

Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for State respondents and perused the records.

¶8

Revisionists have challenged the order dated 17.10.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Mainpuri in Criminal Revision No. 234 of 1993 (Smt. Ruma Devi Vs. Mulayam Singh and others) whereby he allowed the revision and setting aside the order 2.9.1993 passed by Judicial Magistrate-II, Mainpuri and remanded the case back to the Magistrate concerned to proceed with the case according to law.

¶9

It appears that Smt. Ruma Devi filed a complaint being Complaint Case No. 1558 of 1992 against the accused revisionists under Sections 418, 506, & 504 I.P.C. with a prayer to summon the accused persons for trial. The Magistrate concerned after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In revision filed by complainant Smt. Ruma Devi, Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Magistrate concerned for disposal according to law.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties present and traveled through the material on record with the valuable assistance of parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

The main grievance of the revisionists is against the order dated 17.10.1996 whereby the case was remanded back before

¶13

the Magistrate concerned for disposal according to law. The impugned order does not affect the right of revisionists anyway.

¶14

From perusal of file, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by Revisional Court and I see no good ground so as to justify interference of this Court under the revisional jurisdiction.

¶15

Revision lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 15.03.2019 Manoj

Mulayam Singh and Another v. State of U.P.and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulayam Singh and Another v. State of U.P.and Others

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

Bhola and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Charan Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Kumar and 04 Others Vs State of Up and Another