In this criminal revision filed under Section 498 IPC, the High Court dismissed the petition due to the efflux of time and lack of legal representation by the revisionist, finding no illegality in judgments below where the respondent was acquitted.
The present revision is dismissed.
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. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1441 of 1989 Revisionist :- Smt. Sonia Chopra Opposite Party :- Surendra Kumar Chopra Counsel for Revisionist :- D.P.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Kapoor
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised.
None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.
Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State is present.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.1989 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1988 (Surendra Kumar Chopra Vs. State), under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, allowing the appeal and acquitting the opposite party under Section 498A of the I.P.C. arising out of judgment and order dated 16.04.1988 passed by IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra convicting the opposite party under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default three months simple imprisonment.
Shri Vinod Kant submits that the present revision is of the year, 1989 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 orders passed by the courts below, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate court as well as by the court below and have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in both the judgments and orders passed by the courts below.
In view of the above, after having gone through both the judgments and orders under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders under
challenge, and further there appears force in the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General 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.
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.
The file is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 22.2.2022
Arvind
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.02.23 17:34:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision filed against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 498-A IPC requires interference by this Court in view of the absence of representation by the revisionist and
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonia Chopra
Surendra Kumar Chopra
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
