The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of a complaint by a Civil Judge. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence and found no material illegality in the lower court's order.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order.
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. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1689 of 2022
Revisionist :- Usha Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Neeraj Pandey,Raj Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
This Criminal revision is directed against the judgement and order dated 25.03.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge (JD)/FTC, Baghpat whereby the complaint filed by the revisionist has been rejected by the court below.
Initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by the revisionist against the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the court below instead of directing the concerned police station to lodge a FIR treated the same as complaint case vide order dated 30.07.2022 and invited the revisionist and others for their examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and her witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and after going through the material available on record, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the court below has failed to consider the fact that prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed against the respondents and the witnesses produced by the revisionist in support of her case are the natural witnesses and they completely supported her case as they were present at the time of incident even then court below has not considered their statements while dismissing the complaint.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submitted that the scope of revision against the finding of fact is very limited and ordinarily the finding of fact cannot be challenged unless and until there is gross misreading of evidence or there is manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice. The revisional jurisdiction does not confer power on the
revisional court to re-appreciate the evidence on record. The revisional court can examine the record only to satisfy itself that the court below had conducted the proceedings in an appropriate manner and had taken into account entire evidence before passing the judgment.
Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the court below did not found sufficient ground to proceed against the accused respondents and has stated reasons for not relying upon the statements of the complainant and his witnesses.
In the circumstances, I find no scope for interference in the impugned order. I consider that this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the lower court. I, therefore, find no force in this revision. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdictional error.
The Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to concerned court within a fortnight.
Order Date :- 4.5.2022 RavindraKSingh
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.05.04 16:18:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower court's dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. where no gross misreading of evidence is shown.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Usha Devi
State Of U.P.
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
