Dismissed

Manju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022CRLR/500/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 500 of 2008, the High Court held that a revision filed against an order of acquittal in a complaint case was not maintainable as the complaining revisionist had an alternative remedy under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. to seek leave to appeal.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable given the availability of an alternative remedy.

Manju Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 500 of 2008

¶3

Revisionist :- Manju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Srivastava Ii Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Munni Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶5

None present for the revisionist. Sri Hari Shankar Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

From perusal of the record shows that the judgment and order of acquittal was passed in Case No.227 of 2008 (Manju Vs. Ram Sagar and others), which was instituted upon complaint.

¶7

The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of the complainant/revisionist against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Unnao, by which the accused-respondent nos.2 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Safipur, District Unnao.

¶8

None present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed this revision and has submitted that the present revision is not maintainable as the same has been preferred against the order of acquittal, which was passed in a complaint case. He has further submitted that the appropriate remedy for filing appeal is provided under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. with application for leave to appeal in complaint case.

¶10

I have gone through the record and the provision of Section 378(3) & (4) of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Section 378(3) & (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure speaks as follows:-

¶12

"(3) [No appeal to the High Court] under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

¶13

(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court."

¶14

In view of above, it is quite clear that against the order of acquittal passed in complaint case, the complainant has right to prefer appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. with application for leave.

¶15

In such circumstances, where the right of appeal has been provided under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., the revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed being not maintainable.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Anil K. Sharma

¶17

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.12.16 14:00:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

U.P.Polloution Control Board 3RD Floor Plckup Bhawan Vs M/S.Mohan Meakins Ltd.

Ram Das Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Ghoshal Vs State of U.P.and 2 Ors.

Kaleem Vs State of U.P.