Dismissed

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022/189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., this court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the trial court's order allowing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court held that the revisionist's name with specific allegations in the complaint and statutory statement constituted sufficient evidence to prima facie establish guilt. A direction was issued for expedited bail hearing if f

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed. The trial court is directed to decide any future bail application of the revisionist expeditiously.

Pravesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 189 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Pravesh Kumar

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar,Ajay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Present criminal revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC (for trial of offences against women) Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 2017, Complaint Case No. 522 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Lonar, District Hardoi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that a false complaint has been filed by the respondent no. 2 against the revisionist just to falsely implicate him in a criminal case, which may affect his selection in future on the post of Assistant Teacher in government schools. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the name of the revisionist was not taken by the respondent no. 2 in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On 20.04.2013 summons were issued against certain persons but not against the present revisionist. It is further submitted that several disputes are going on between the parties from last several years and are pending before different competent courts of law.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that name of the revisionist was in the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 with specific role. When statement of the complainant was recorded as PW-1, he has taken the

¶10

name of the revisionist with same allegations as alleged in the complaint and after considering the statements, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the learned Court below, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material available before this court, it is found that there are allegations against the revisionist in the complaint and when the statement of the complainant was recorded as PW-1, he has taken the name of the revisionist narrating the same allegation as alleged in the complaint case and after considering the said material, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the court.

¶12

Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to proceed against other persons, who appear to be guilty of offence though not accused before the Court. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 has held that the word "appear" means" clear to the comprehension", or a phrase near to, if not synonymous with "proved", it imparts a lesser degree of probability than proof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019 6 SCC 368 has held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are said to be evidence for the purposes of adjudicating the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 2020 14 SCC 472 has held that only prima-facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on anvil of cross examination.

¶13

In the present case, the statements recorded during the course of proceedings and from the initial stage of filing a complaint, the

¶14

name of the revisionist with specific role has been mentioned which is sufficient evidence for the purposes of adjudicating the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court referred above no good ground has been made out for interference and hence, the present criminal revision is dismissed .

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in case the revisionist moves a bail application, the same may be decided expeditiously.

¶16

The learned Court below is expected that if the revisionist moves an application for bail, the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.3.2022 Ashish

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHISH MISHRA Date: 2022.03.10 17:07:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl Chief Secy Home Deptt Civil Sectt and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs State through Cbi/Acb/ Lucknow

Shyam Deo Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home and Anr.

Rubina Anjum and Others Vs State of Up Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept, of Home and Another

Sardar Satnam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Dr.Chandan Kumar Vishwas and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrety. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. and Another