This criminal revision was preceded by a condonation of delay application. The criminal revision was dismissed as the Magistrate had prima facie found a sufficient case under Sections 419 and 420 IPC based on the police final report.
The criminal revision aggrieved by the summoning order under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; interim order vacated.
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. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 140 of 1997
Revisionist :- Anup Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- H.M.Srivastava, Rakesh Harsh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Siddhant Sahu
(D.Cond.Appl.dt. 1.9.97)
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 140 of 1997
Revisionist :- Anup Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- H.M.Srivastava,Rakesh Harsh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Siddhant Sahu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay in filing the criminal revision and dispose of the criminal revision application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anup Rawat
State Of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
