Allowed

Kanhaiya Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2021CRLR/188/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 188 of 2016, this court allowed a revision filed by Kanhaiya Singh challenging an order of the U.P. High Court refusing to quash an order of accusation and victim's complaint. The original order was based on a refusal to accept the victim's statement under Sections 227 and 169 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

High Court order dated 17-12-2015 set aside; revisionist directed to be impleaded and original order quashed in revision.

Kanhaiya Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 188 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Kanhaiya Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Subhash Chandra Yadav,Upendra Kumar Rai,Vinod Kumar Yadav,Yashpal Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nand Lal Yadav,Prem Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

lwph iqujhf{krA

¶6

fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSaA foi{khx.k dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA

¶7

fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls ;g nkf.Md fuxjkuh] eq0v0la0 957 lu 2013] vUrxZr /kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468 Hkk0na0fo0] Fkkuk dksrokyh eqckjdiqj] ftyk vktex<+ ls mn~Hkwr okn la0 191 lu 2015] dUgS;k flag izfr izHkkr dqekj vkfn esa eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vktex<+ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fn0 17&12&2015 dks vikLr djus gsrq nk;j dh x;h gSA

¶8

fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd oknh eqdnek@fuxjkuhdrkZ dUgS;k flag }kjk foi{khx.k izHkkr dqekj] eqUuj jke rFkk vkse izdk’k ik.Ms; ds fo:) LFkkuh; Fkkus ij eq0v0la0 957@2013 /kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468 Hkk0na0fo0 ds rgr eqdnek ntZ djok;k x;k] iqfyl us foospuksijkUr mDr ekeys esa vafre vk[;k fnukafdr 16&11&2014 izsf"kr fd;kA vfUre fjiksVZ izkIr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk oknh eqdnek dks uksfVl tkjh dh x;h] oknh eqdnek us mifLFkr gksdj vfUre fjiksVZ ij izksVsLV izkFkZuki=@vkifRr izLrqr fd;k] ftlesa ;g dFku fd;k x;k fd vfUre fjiksVZ fcYdqy >wBk o eux<Ur ,oa vlR; lk{; dk lgkjk ysdj izLrqr dh x;h rFkk na0iz0la0 ds izkfo/kku /kkjk 169 dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;k] blds lkFk gh fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk vius dFku ds leFkZu esa voj U;k;ky; ds le{k dkQh foLrkjiwoZd dFku fd;k x;k gS ,oa vfHkys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr fd, x, gSa fdUrq fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk xgurkiwoZd ifj’khyu u djrs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k dks fopkj.k gsrq ryc u djrs gq, izksVsLV fiVh’ku dks fujLr djus esa =qfV dh gSA

¶9

fo}ku vij 'kkldh; vf/koDrk us fuxjkuhdrkZ ds rdksZ dk fojks/k fd;kA

¶10

eSaus nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dk ifj’khyu fd;kA

¶11

fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds rdksZ ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij myC/k lk{; dks ns[krs gq, fo+}ku vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vktex<+ }kjk ikfjr iz’uxr vkns’k fn0 17&12&2015 ljljh rkSj ij =qfViw.kZ gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA

¶12

vr% ;g nkf.Md fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] vktex<+ }kjk mijksDr okn esa ikfjr iz’uxr vkns’k fn0 17&12&2015 vikLr fd;k tkrk gS] ,oa izdj.k dks muds le{k bl funsZ’k ds lkFk izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr fdlh Hkh fVIi.kh ds xq.k&nks"k ls izHkkfor gq, fcuk] i{kdkjksa dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, ,oa i=koyh dk lE;d :is.k voyksdu djus ds mijkUr mfpr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A

¶13

fn0 % 23&3&2021 ds0lh0flag

¶14

2 of 2

Kanhaiya Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rustam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another