This Criminal Revision assailed the order rejecting an application to summon additional accused persons under section319 Cr.P.C. The single judge upheld the lower court's order, citing ‘Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy’ and dismissing the revision.
The revision is dismissed and the impugned order dated22.11.2021 is upheld.
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. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1106 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ram Chandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Other Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Pandey,Suman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of this revision, the revisionist is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat whereby the application filed by the revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon opposite party nos. 2 to 6 has been rejected.
I have perused the order.
The opposite party nos. 2 to 6 are the proposed accused persons who are devar, jeth and jethani who are remotely connected with the matters of husband and wife. The reasons given by the Court below for rejecting the aforesaid application are perfectly just and valid and do not warrant any interference by this Court.
The principles of law laid down in the case of ' Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy' in Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2019 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.208 of 2019 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court are squarely applied in the present case. As such, the impugned order does not deserve any interference.
Accordingly, the present revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.3.2022 Madhurima
Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.04.01 16:22:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application to summon opposite party nos.2 to6 under section319 Cr.P.C. deserves interference.
Whether the reasons given by the Court below for rejecting the application are valid.
Periyasami and another Vs. S. Nallasamy is applicable in the present c.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Periyasami and others Vs. S. NallasamyExplained¶9
Periyasami and others Vs. S. Nallasamy
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Chandra
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
