The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order calling records from a related case occurring on the same date, time, and place. The court found no apparent error, illegality, or perversity in the lower court's order.
Revision petition 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. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 564 of 2021
Revisionist :- Brijesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA-I appearing for the State-opposite party.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Case No. 1196 of 2020 (State vs. Rajeev Kumar @ Banti and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 149 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 and 324 IPC, P.S. Kayamganj, District Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad).
In terms of the order dated 16.01.2021 the learned Magistrate upon noticing the fact that case crime no. 149 of 2020 and case crime no. 150 of 2020 relate to an incident having the same date, time and place of occurrence has directed for calling of the records from the court concerned.
The only ground which is sought to be raised in support of the revision is the order directing for calling the records of the other case would have the effect of delaying the trial of the case instituted pursuant to the FIR lodged by the revisionist.
Learned AGA-I appearing for the State-opposite party submits that there is absolutely no material on the basis of which such a contention is being raised. Moreover, he submits that a bare reading of the two FIRs indicate that both relate to an incident whose date, time and place of occurrence is same, and in view thereof the Magistrate has rightly called for the records of the other case.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has not been able to dispute the aforesaid factual position.
The powers of the revision are to be exercised only in a case where there is any apparent error, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the court below.
No such material error or illegality having been pointed out in
the order impugned, this court is not inclined to entertain the revision.
The revision stands accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2021 Imroz
(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a revision petition challenging an order directing the calling of records from an associated case to investigate a same incident.
Brijesh Kumar
State Of Up
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
