High Court corrected delay and permitted revision under CrPC. Held that challenge to charge-framing order is only for rare patent jurisdictional errors; no such error found here. Revision dismissed.
Application for condonation of delay allowed; criminal revision application dismissed.
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. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 364 of 2019
Revisionist :- Rahul Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prabhakar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
(Order in Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist on delay condonation application.
This delay condonation application has been filed on behalf of the revisionist with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the revision, which is reported to be beyond time by 95 days.
On the grounds specified in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the revisionist could not file the revision in time.
Cause shown is sufficient. The prayer so made is accepted and accordingly, the delay condonation application stands allowed . The delay is condoned and the appeal is treated to have been filed well within time.
Order on Revision
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.39272/ 2017 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Rahul Gupta), arising out of Case Crime No.146/17, under Section 506, 341, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby charge under Section 341, 504, 506 has been framed against the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that F.I.R. has been lodged maliciously with false allegation against applicant. From the perusal of record, offence under Section 341 I.P.C. is not made out.
Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of
Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-
"..............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter."
Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the court below. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below.
In result, the instant revision, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.5.2019 Radhika
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against an order framing charges under CrPC or Article 227.
Whether there is a patent jurisdictional error in the order framing charges against the revisionist.
Whether the condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision application is warranted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of InvestigationRelied on¶15
2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
