Allowed

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022CRLR/3708/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge in Criminal Revision No. 3708 of 2021 allowed a revision at the admission stage against an order summoning accused persons. The court held that the impugned order was based solely on witness statements recorded during a previously dismissed complaint without fresh evidence or findings on the maintainability of the subsequent complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.11.2021 is set aside. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order after recording fresh statements and returning findings on the maintainability of the second complai

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3708 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Israr Ahmad And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Javed Husain Khan,Gulrez Khan,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. filed by six revisionists against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 751 (Yaz Ahmad Vs. Gulam Husain and others) whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Jaunpur summoned the present revisionists to face the trial under Sections 352, 504 & 379 I.P.C.

¶8

It is argued that when the first complaint was dismissed under Section 203 I.P.C., the lower court, on filing of second complaint by the complainant, did not record fresh statement and on the basis of previously recorded statement, the impugned order has been passed, which is against the provisions of law and the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.11.2021 has been made. As the mistake is apparent on the face of record, therefore, I do not find any need to summon the opposite party no. 2.

¶9

I have gone through the record and find that initially a complaint dated 28.04.2017 was filed by the opposite party no. 2, which is appended at page-'54' of the paper book and after registration of this complaint, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 21.08.2017, the statement of P.W. 1 - Rudra Pratap Singh was recorded on 12.09.2017, the statement of Surya Mani Pandey-P.W. 2 was recorded on 29.01.2018 and the statement of Furkan Ahmad was recorded on 13.04.2018. After recording these statements on 14.02.2019 this complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for non prosecution. This order is appended at page-'67' of the paper book. Thereafter, the second complaint was filed by the same complainant regarding same cause of action on 16.07.2019, which is appended at page-'72' of the paper book. Thereafter, the lower court passed the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 summoning the present revisionists and one Gulam Husain, who is reported to have

¶10

died on 07.05.2021. The death certificate of Gulam Husain is appended at page-'95' of the paper book, wherein the death of Gulam Husain is said to have occurred on 07.05.2021.

¶11

If we go through the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 it is based on the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses, Rudra Pratap Singh, Surya Mani Pandey and Furkan Ahmad under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant on the basis of which this impugned order has been passed is dated 21.08.2017 and the rest statement of P.W. 1 is dated 12.09.2017, P.W. 2 is dated 29.01.2018 and P.W. 3 is dated 13.04.2018 which show that these statements were recorded in the previous complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and after filing of second complaint on 16.07.2019 no further statement of the complainant or the witnesses are said to have been recorded by the lower court.

¶12

In my opinion, this is a blunder mistake that on the basis of statements regarding previous complaint the present revisionist has been summoned by the lower court. Moreover, there is no finding in the impugned order that the second complaint is maintainable on the same facts or not? Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.11.2021 is set aside. The lower court is directed to pass a fresh order after recording fresh statements of the complainant and his witnesses and also after returning the finding on the point of maintainability of the second complaint.

¶13

Accordingly, the revision is allowed at the stage of admission itself.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 gp

¶15

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.02.24 18:47:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israr Ahmad and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Muniram Thekedar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Utkarsh Arya Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sri Nivas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dushyant Chauhan Vs Harish Chandra

Ram Milan Mishra Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Ajay Kumar Nahar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another