The Special High Court of judgment at Kanpur Dehat dismissed the criminal revision against the rejection of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, finding no illegality. The Court directed filing a complaint instead.
Revisionist directed to file a complaint case under Sakiri Vasu.
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. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 900 of 2022
Revisionist :- Akash Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Om Shiv Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.
The present criminal revision is targeted against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2021 by which the revisionist's 156(3) Cr.P.C. application was rejected by the Special Judge(D.A.A.) Kanpur Dehat in Misc. Case No.573 of 2021 titled as Akash Babu Vs. Balram Singh, Police Station-Derapur, DistrictKanpur Dehat.
I have perused the impugned order and I do not find any illegality or perversity in it. The revisionist, if so advised, may file a complaint case as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409.
With the aforesaid observations, the present revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.4.2022 Sumit S
Digitally signed by SUMIT SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.04.07 11:20:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the 156(3) Cr.P.C. application exhibits any illegality or perversity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
(2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
