Quashed

Dharmesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019CRLR/649/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged the summons order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. issued without prior naming in the complaint or charge sheet. The High Court held this as a manifest error of law, quashing the order and remanding the matter for reconsideration with reasons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.01.2019 summoning the revisionist is quashed; the trial court is directed to decide the matter by a well-reasoned order within eight weeks.

Dharmesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 649 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Dharmesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Paritosh Sukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist is assailing the legality and veracity of the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Aligarh by which the applicant was summoned in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C..

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist were neither named in the FIR nor charge sheeted by the police but for the first time, the name of the revisionist figured up in the testimony of PW-1 Tasleem Ahmad and on the testimony of PW1 , the trial court has summoned the revisionist to face the trial, which is against the principles of ratio of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Brijendra Singh & others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2017) 7 SCC 706 , Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors reported in (2014)3 SCC 92 , Labhuii Amratji Thakor & others Vs. State of Gujrat and another , (Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6392 of 2018 decided on 13.11.2018.

¶8

I have gone through the impugned order and there is manifest error of law, now the learned trial court has relied upon the statement of Constable Dharmesh and Danish, without going into the material that the police has submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and during investigation at least he is duty bound to consider the material collected by the police through investigation.

¶9

Under the circumstances there is no good reason to keep this matter pending, accordingly, the order dated 22.01.2019 is hereby quashed and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.48, Aligarh is directed to reconsider and decide matter by well reasoned and speaking order by taking help of guidelines provided in the above mentioned case within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation, the revision is disposed of finally.

¶11

Order Date :- 15.2.2019 Abhishek Sri.

Dharmesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Goyal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Pathak and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Amit Kumar @ Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Azhar Khan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Asha Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Pandey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.