Dismissed¶12

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022CRLR/905/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Revision No. 905 of 2022; Lal Bahadur vs State of U.P. and Another; Rahul Chaturvedi, J.; order dated 7.4.2022; discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. after framing of charge; Complaint Case No.6 of 2012; Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC; Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad; earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C. application No.2902 of 2020 (order dated 28.1.2020) permitting amendment of charge; discharge application loses efficacy once charges framed; no illegality or perversity; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Once charges have been framed, a discharge application loses its efficacy; the Court perceives no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dismissing the discharge application and finds no good reason to interfere. ¶10

Lal Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 905 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Lal Bahadur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present revision the revisionist is assailing the legality and validity of order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad whereby discharge application of the revisionist u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No.6 of 2012 (Sushila Devi vs Lal Bahadur and others), u/s 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., Police StationUtraon, District-Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn attention of the Court to its earlier application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. which was filed by the revisionist aggrieved by adding of Sections 467, 468 I.P.C. along with 420 I.P.C. Contention is that there is no evidence on record to attract Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. against the revisionist.

¶8

I have perused my earlier order dated 28.1.2020 passed in Application u/s 482 No.2902 of 2020 and its relevant portion is quoted herein below :

¶9

" The Court at this juncture finds at loss to sift and weigh the evidence or to adjudicate the sufficiency of material so as to attract 'Section 467, 468 I.P.C. If the applicant is aggrieved by the framing of charge, he may file an appropriate application under relevant Section of Cr.P.C. for amending the charge. If such an application is filed, same shall be decided by the court by a reasoned order within 15 days from the production of certified copy of this order."

¶10

Instead of filing appropriate application for amending the charge, the revisionist has moved a discharge application which was dismissed by the learned court below by passing impugned order. I do not perceive any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It is settled proposition of law that once the charges have been framed, the discharge application looses if efficacy. I do not find any good reason to interfere in the

¶11

impugned order.

¶12

The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 M. Kumar

¶14

Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR Date: 2022.04.08 10:29:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Disha Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ankila (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Moola @ Moolvir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Sanaya Sharma (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another