A criminal revision under Sections 498-A, 323, 325 IPC and D.P. Act challenging an order rejecting a discharge application filed by an accused before a Magistrate was dismissed. The bench found no merit in the revision to interfere.
Prayer to set aside impugned order dismissed. Bail in accordance with law granted for thirty days.
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. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4896 of 2019 Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harish Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the orders dated 26.9.2019 and 24.10.2019 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.7, Allahabad in case no. 529 of 2017, arising out of case crime no. 176 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station, Sarai Mamrej, District Allahabad.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA appearing for the State.
It appears that the revisionist had earlier approached this Court through application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.25053 of 2019 in which a direction was given to the revisionist to file discharge application through counsel and the Court below was directed to decide the said application within two months from the date of filing of said application. In compliance of the said directions, concerned Magistrate heard the revisionist through counsel and passed the impugned order dated 26.9.2019 rejecting the discharge application. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.
I have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. The concerned Magistrate while passing the impugned order has considered the entire evidence available on record. Specific allegations have been made against the revisionist. Further, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist before this Court may be raised before the court concerned at appropriate stage. Hence, the prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed .
However, in case revisionist appears before the Court concerned and applies for bail within 30 days from today, same shall be considered in accordance with law. For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the revisionist to surrender before the Court below.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019
safi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application in a case under Sections 498-A IPC, 323 IPC, 325 IPC and D.P. Act is liable to be set aside in public interest.
Whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
Manoj Kumar Verma
State of U.P.
Om Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
