Allowed

Sukhvir Singh v. State of U.P. and Anorther

Allahabad HC5 May 2022CRLR/2138/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Revisionist challenged an order refusing an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging identity fraud in the victim's Aadhar card. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration with a proper hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.07.2021 set aside; matter remitted to Magistrate to pass fresh order after hearing.

Sukhvir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anorther — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2138 of 2021 Revisionist :- Sukhvir Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anorther Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Kumar,Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,Sr. Advocate

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Pati Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Praveeen Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the concerned Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 635 M of 2021, Sukhvir Singh vs. Shyam Singh and Others, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

¶7

The sole argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that opposite party no. 2 has got his name changed in the Aadhar Card No. 6005 3544 2728 from Shyam Singh to Nishan Singh and his date of birth in Aadhar Card is 30.06.1978. He further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has not only changed his name but also taken over identity of the another person but the court below has not considered this aspect while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the revisionist has moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit for conducting an inquiry and getting criminal case registered in the matter and in pursuance of this application the Superintendent of Police directed the concerned Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for making an inquiry and called for a report. Inspite of the same, no F.I.R. has been lodged and no inquiry has been conducted.

¶8

It is contended that a clear case of cognizable offence is made out against the private respondent yet the court below wrongly rejected the application of the revisionist on non-existent ground without proper application of mind.

¶9

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the matter is remitted back to the concerned Magistrate.

¶10

In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Magistrate to pass the order afresh, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Accordingly, this revision is allowed .

¶12

Order Date :- 5.5.2022 Aditya

¶13

Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.05.06 16:50:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sukhvir Singh v. State of U.P. and Anorther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhvir Singh v. State of U.P. and Anorther

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachchha Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nidhi Mishra (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shani Paswan (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Neeta Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others