This criminal revision challenged the trial court's cognizance under IPC Sections 504, 506, 323, and 336. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding no illegality in the order. It held that the injuries were not fatal, thus no cognizance under Section 307 IPC was warranted.
The criminal revision was dismissed with costs.
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. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1387 of 2021
Revisionist :- Satendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist through video conferencing and learned A.G.A. is present in the Court.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by F.T.C. (S.D.), Farrukhabad in Criminal Case No.236 of 2021 (State Vs. Surendra Singh & others, arising out of Case Crime No.0058 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506, 323, 336 I.P.C., Police Station Mohammadabad, district Farrukhabad, pending in the court of F.T.C. (S.D.), Farrukhabad, by which the accused persons have been summoned.
The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant against the five named accused persons, Rampal Singh, Shailendra Singh, Surendra Singh @ Rinku, Dharmendra Singh and Rahul Singh. It was alleged in the first information report that on 27.01.2019 at about 10.00 a.m. when the complainant was sitting at Mahadev Chabutara along with his father and Jagdish Singh the named accused persons came there and started abusing and hit the complainant side with country made pistol with intention to kill them. It was further alleged that the complainant's father got injuries in his right arm. It was also alleged that the accused persons also hit on the nose of the complainant's father. The matter was investigated and the police submitted chargesheet only against the three persons, namely, Surendra Singh @ Rinku, Dharmendra Singh and Rahul Singh under Sections 504, 506, 323, 336 I.P.C., while other two named accused were exonerated by the police. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 17.03.2021 has taken cognizance in the matter. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the police has not investigated the matter properly and the injured sustained injuries, which were fatal and dangerous to life and the police has not submitted the charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. The learned trial court ought to
have taken cognizance under Section 307 I.P.C.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned trial court has taken cognizance in the matter on the basis of material available during investigation. He further submitted that the injured is alleged to have received bullet injury on the right arm, which is not a vital part and the said injury was not said to be fatal and dangerous to life.
After carefully considering the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, the impugned order is perfectly valid, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.
The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 08.7.2021 R./
Digitally signed by Justice Ajit Singh Date: 2021.08.27 14:27:08 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
State of U.P. and Others
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
