This court allowed the criminal revision. It held that the reasoning in the impugned order by the court concerned was perfectly valid, just, and did not call for any interference under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C.
Criminal revision disposed of as the reasoning of the lower court was valid and just.
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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1326 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ramsaharey Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jeetendra Kumar Yadav,Panchraj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Jeetendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate.
I have perused the order impugned dated 9.7.2021. The reasoning adopted by the court concerned is perfectly valid and just and do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C.
The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 and Mohd Ibrahim and another vs. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (8) SCC 751. He further submitted that in both the decisions of Hon'ble the Apex Court it has been clearly mentioned that the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
It is always open for the revisionist to move a complaint for redressal of his grievance.
If such an complaint is moved same shall be decided by the Court concerned strictly in accordance with law of the procedure within three months' of its filing.
With this observation, the present criminal revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
Sumaira
Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.04.20 16:25:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 9.7.2021 calling for no further inquiry calls for any interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶7
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others (2008 (2) SCC 409) · Who else cites this
Mohd Ibrahim and another vs. State of BiharReferred¶7
Mohd Ibrahim and another vs. State of Bihar (2009 (8) SCC 751) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramsaharey Verma
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
