Dismissed

Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022A227/3699/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 sought to quash an order allowing a criminal revision that had set aside a lower court order refusing to summon the petitioners. The court held the writ petition was not maintainable as the order was subject to a revision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioners directed to file a criminal revision.

Raju and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3699 of 2022 Petitioner :- Raju And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Akbal Upadhyay,Rekha Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ram Akbal Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶5

By way of present petition, petitioners have made a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Allahabad (Prayagraj) in Criminal Revision No. 332 of 2013, whereby, the trial court set aside the order dated 06.07.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Allahabad, whereby learned Magistrate rejected the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners is an accused in a criminal case and they were although nominated in the FIR, but during investigation their complicity was found false, therefore, no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and during trial when PW-1 Maharajdeen and PW-2 Jagannath have examined before the trial court then prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the petitioners in the present case, which was initially dismissed by the Magistrate on 06.07.2013 and thereafter opposite party no.2 preferred a revision against the order dated 06.07.2013, which was allowed and order dated 06.07.2013 passed by the Magistrate was set aside.

¶7

As, revision filed by opposite party no.2 was allowed by way of impugned order 21.01.2020, therefore, by virtue of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. revision is maintainable and petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

¶8

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶9

However, it is open for the petitioners to file a criminal revision against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by lower revisional court.

¶10

Certified copy, if any, be returned to the counsel for the petitioners after obtaining the xerox copy of the same on record.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.7.2022/AK Pandey

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.12 10:10:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju and 4 Others 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

Neha Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Pandey and 5 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Bhushan Pandey @ Shashi Bhushan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs Sudhanshu Gupta

Babu Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another