M. Chandra v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed to set aside a summoning order. The court held that the complaint allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and were supported by recorded statements, thus the order was legal and proper.
What did the court decide?
The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused and the application is dismissed.
What the court decided
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 799 of 1992
Revisionist :- M. Chandra and others Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- K.D. Tripathi,L.C. Pandey,N.C. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A,R.Pandey
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
List revised. None appears to either for the revisionists or for the opposite party no.2 to press this revision.
The instant case is pending consideration since 1992 With the assistance of learned A.G.A. I have gone through the pleadings of the instant case. reliefs as sought by the revisionists as well as counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2.
This revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.05.1992 passed by learned Munsif Magistrate, Khaga, District Fatehpur in Criminal Case No. 178 of 1992 whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under Sections 427, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4/10 of U.P.Forest Protection Act.
It has been averred in the present revision that no offence against the revisionists is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.Itr has also been averred that the revisionists are innocent person, who have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case, wherein the learned trial Court in a routine manner has summoned the revisionists vide impugned order to face trial under the aforesaid Sections without considering the factual and legal aspects of the matter and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned summoning order under Sections 427, 506 IPC and Section 4/10 of U.P. Forest Protection Act calling for interference in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Chandra and others
- respondent
State
Coram
HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/799/1992
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court