The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed under Article 226. The court noted that the revisionist was absent and the cause of action did not survive. No interference was warranted as the revisionist could not make out a case for the court.
Petition for revision 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. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 413 of 1991
Revisionist :- Smt. Sabita Seth Opposite Party :- State And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,R.S.Mishra
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Case called out in revised list. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to press this revision. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The matter is an old one pending since 1991.
It is well settled that powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in Court of law. Inherent powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
It appears that either the cause of action no more survives or the revisionist has lost interest in this matter or it has otherwise become infructuous and, probably for this reason, none is interested to have decided this matter on merits and that is why, counsel for revisionist is absent.
However, I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought and find that the revisionist is not able to make out a case so as to justify interference of this Court by granting reliefs, as prayed for.
In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.11.2021
RPD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision under Article 226 should be allowed in the absence of the revisionist.
Whether the High Court can grant relief when the revisionist has lost interest in the matter.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sabita Seth
State
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
