Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Dilawar Singh Chauhan Vs Rajendra Prasad — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

Home
Allahabad HC
2022
Dilawar Singh Chauhan Vs Rajendra PrasadDilawar Singh Chauhan v. Rajendra Prasad

Dismissed¶¶8

Dilawar Singh Chauhan v. Rajendra Prasad

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022CRLR/1194/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision No. 1194 of 1997, Dilawar Singh Chauhan v. Rajendra Prasad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, order dated 9.3.2022 by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J. Dismissal of a 1997 criminal revision against the District Judge, Bijnore's order dated 13.06.1997 rejecting the revisionist's complaint dated 24.08.1996; dismissal for want of prosecution/loss of interest due to efflux of time; no illegality or infirmity found; interim order discharged; order sent to Magistrate for compliance; lower court record returned. No statutes or precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; interim order, if any, stands discharged; copy of the order to be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance; lower court record, if any, to be returned to the court concerned.

Why is it important?

The order under challenge needs no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in it; no good ground for interference is made out, particularly with no one appearing for the revisionist to point out any illegality or infirmity. ¶¶7

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision dismissed; interim order, if any, stands discharged; copy of the order to be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance; lower court record, if any, to be returned to the court concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 13.06.1997 of the District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the revisionist's complaint calls for any interference by this Court in revision.

Court's answer

The order under challenge needs no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in it; no good ground for interference is made out, particularly with no one appearing for the revisionist to point out any illegality or infirmity.

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the submission of the learned A.G.A., due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest in pursuing the matter, and therefore the revision is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shamim Ahmed, J.) dismissed Criminal Revision No. 1194 of 1997 challenging the order dated 13.06.1997 of the District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the revisionist's complaint dated 24.08.1996. No one appeared for the revisionist at the hearing; the learned A.G.A. submitted that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel had lost interest in pursuing the matter and that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Court found no good ground for interference, dismissed the revision, discharged any interim order, and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for onward transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance, with the lower court record returned.

A

Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1194 of 1997 Revisionist :- Dilawar Singh Chauhan Opposite Party :- Rajendra Prasad Counsel for Revisionist :- Dilawat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- R K Awasthi

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.06.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijnore in a complaint made by the revisionist dated 24.08.1996, rejecting the complaint made by the revisionist.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the present revision is of the year, 1997 and it appears that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest to pursue this matter, and there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.

I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court and also perused the record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.A. I do not find any good ground for interference in the present case. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

In view of the above, after having gone through the order under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same needs no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge, and further there appears force in the argument of the learned A.G.A. that due to efflux of time the revisionist and his counsel have lost interest in pursuing the matter, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onwards transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance who will proceed further in the matter.

Let the lower court record, if any, be returned back to the court concerned.

The file is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 9.3.2022

Mustaqeem.

Digitally signed by MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN Date: 2022.04.04 17:11:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned order dated 13.06.1997 of the District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the revisionist's complaint calls for any interference by this Court in revision.medium confidence¶¶6
The court held
The order under challenge needs no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in it; no good ground for interference is made out, particularly with no one appearing for the revisionist to point out any illegality or infirmity.ratio¶¶7

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 13.06.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the complaint made by the revisionist dated 24.08.1996¶¶4
District Judge, Bijnore · 13.06.1997
Prior proceeding
Complaint made by the revisionist dated 24.08.1996, which was rejected by the District Judge, Bijnore by order dated 13.06.1997¶¶4

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Dilawar Singh Chauhan¶¶1
Dilawat Singh
respondent
Rajendra Prasad¶¶1
R K Awasthi
other
State¶¶3

Coram

AI extract

Shamim Ahmedauthor¶¶2

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 9 Mar 2022 · March
Registered: 15 Sept 1997
Case no.: CRLR/1194/1997
CNR: UPHC010096611997
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
Disposal: Dismissed on merits
Case type: CRIMINAL REVISION

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Shamim Ahmed

Smt. Jai Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others
8 Mar 2022
Smt.Bela Vs State of U.P.and Another
8 Mar 2022
Maddey Khan Vs State of U.P.
8 Mar 2022
Mahendra Singh Vs Hemraj and Others
9 Mar 2022
Smt. Ram Rani Vs State of U.P. and Another
9 Mar 2022
Shankar Lal Vs State of U.P. and Others
9 Mar 2022

Cite this judgement

Dilawar Singh Chauhan v. Rajendra Prasad, CRLR/1194/1997 (ALL), decided on 9 March 2022.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history2

Order dated 13.06.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijnore rejecting the complaint made by the revisionist dated 24.08.1996District Judge, Bijnore · 13.06.1997
Complaint made by the revisionist dated 24.08.1996, which was rejected by the District Judge, Bijnore by order dated 13.06.1997

View full history

Bench / Coram

Shamim Ahmed

Parties & counsel