Dismissed

Anil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2022A227/1208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227. The petitioner challenged an order setting aside the framing of charges. The court held that since no charges were currently framed against the petitioner, setting aside the order was not consequential and dismissed the writ petition, directing the lower court to dispose of the complaint expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; lower court directed to dispose of complaint within six months.

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1208 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Gaur,Ashwani Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

By moving this petition prayer is made to set aside the imugned order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj.

¶7

The facts are that the opposite party no. 2 - Smt. Manju Devi moved an application in the lower court to amend the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and made a prayer that in her absence order dated 04.10.2019 has been passed whereby the charge under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. has been framed against the present petitioner - Anil. According to Smt. Manju Devi on the basis of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. charge under Sections 457, 380, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was to be framed and the prayer was made accordingly. This application of Smt. Manju Devi was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj vide order dated 04.01.2021 and when Smt. Manju Devi filed a revision against the same, vide order dated 17.03.2021 this revision was allowed and the order dated 04.01.2021 and charge framed as a result of that order both were set aside and the lower court was ordered to pass a fresh order after providing opportunity of cross examination to the counsel of the accused.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the revisional court has recalled the charge framed on 04.10.2019 while the prayer in this respect was never made before the revisional court.

¶9

A perusal of the record discloses that if the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. moved by Smt. Manju Devi was rejected and the charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. were framed and as the revision is allowed then in continuance of setting aside the order dated 04.01.2021 the order of framing charge will automatically be presumed to be recalled whereby the revisional court has only made a formal order in this regard. So far as the plight of the present petitioner is concerned, till date no charge has been framed against him. The revisional

¶10

court has only issued a direction to the lower court to frame charge against the opposite party - Anil after providing opportunity of being heard to both the parties and after providing opportunity of cross examination to the counsel of the opposite party.

¶11

As there is no charge presently against the petitioner so in my opinion, there is no sense of setting aside the impugned order dated 17.03.2021. The prayer of the petitioner is, thus, rejected.

¶12

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶13

However, the lower court is directed to disposed of the complaint expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.3.2022 gp

¶15

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.03.05 18:16:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Jitendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Pal Vs Shyam Singh

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amarnath Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Brij Kishor Tiwari Vs Rahul Yadav and 2 Others