Dismissed

Sardar Harminder v. Madan Gopal

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2019CRLR/343/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Court held that the trial court has authority to summon the accused based on appraisal of evidence. The revision court, limited to jurisdictional scrutiny, found no illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. The revision was dismissed as devoid of merit despite the petitioner's absence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision No. 343 of 1994 is dismissed. Stay order, if any, is vacated.

Sardar Harminder Vs Madan Gopal — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 343 of 1994

¶3

Revisionist :- Sardar Harminder Opposite Party :- Madan Gopal Counsel for Revisionist :- V.K. Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Revisionist or his learned counsel is not present while learned A.G.A. is present.

¶7

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 2.11.1993, passed by learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, DAA, AGra in S.S.T. No. of 1993 by which he has summoned the applicant u/s 395 IPC in case of Madan Gopal vs. Sardar Harminder Singh Bedi, P.S. Chhatta, District Agra.

¶9

In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.

¶10

The revisionist has filed the instant revision on the following grounds; that the case is pending between the parties regarding the same property and due to parti bandi, this case was filed by the opposite party u/s 395 IPC and without evidence, learned trial court summoned the accused and committed manifest error; that the learned trial court failed to exercise his jurisdiction, hence the order passed by learned trial court is not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and the revision is likely to be allowed.

¶11

This revision is against the summoning order. There aThere is no appreciation of evidence and revisional court has no power to appreciate the evidence as adduced in the court below.re several rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the scope of revision is very limited and only to see whether the order passed by learned trial court as well as learned appellate court is within their jurisdiction or not. Summoning of the accused in interlocutory order unless and until gross-miscarriage of justice and no revision lies against the summoning order. Revisionist has several other remedy before the trial court, hence, revision has no force. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order. Finding is based on the appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

¶12

Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is dismissed.

¶13

Stay order, if any, is vacated.

¶14

A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned lower court for compliance within one month.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.1.2019 m.a.

Sardar Harminder v. Madan Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Harminder v. Madan Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shah Nawajuddin Vs State of U.P.

Atal Dixit and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sonavati Mandal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Sagar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hamid Vs State of U.P.