Smt. Shitla Devi and 4 Others v. State of U.P.and 2 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16848 of…
What the court decided
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16848 of 2022
Applicant :- Smt. Shitla Devi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Yadav,Rakesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The applicants/ revisionists, through the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.4.2022 passed by the C.J.M., Etah in F.R. No. 1054 of 2021 (Anita Devi Vs. Shitala Devi and others) whereof he allowed the protest petition filed by the O.P. No. 2 directing the reinvestigation in garb of the further investigation in Case Crime No. 154 of 2020, under section 302 IPC, P.S. Malawan, District Etah.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as material brought on record, I am of the view that impugned order is based upon relevant consideration and supported by cogent reason, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence, no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
The application/revision lacks merit. It is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants quashing of the impugned order directing reinvestigation?
Whether the impugned order is founded on relevant considerations, cogent reasons, and does not suffer from jurisdictional error?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Smt. Shitla Devi And 4 Others
Coram
Gautam Chowdhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- A482/16848/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court