The High Court dismissed the criminal revision assailing the rejection of a discharge application. The court held there was no illegality in the impugned order and the revisionist could have challenged the charge at the time of framing, therefore no interference was warranted.
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. - 91 of 2022
Revisionist :- Balram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Shri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.
The instant criminal revision has been filed assailing the legality and validity of order dated 12.11.2021 whereby the revisionist's discharge application was rejected by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Jaunpur in S.T. No.55 of 2021 (State vs Balram) arising out of Case Crime No.163 of 2020, u/s 147, 302, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Khuthan, District Jaunpur.
Submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is named in the F.I.R., which was initially lodged u/s 147, 323, 504, 308, 354(Kha) of I.P.C. on 4.7.2020 attributing specific role of exhorting the other to commit the offence causing serious injuries to Abhay Yadav. After few days of sustaining injuries, Abhay Yadav the injured succumbed to those injuries and died. Postmortem report of the deceased indicates that he sustained two injuries over his person. Contention raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is that at best the case would fall within the ambit of Section 304 I.P.C. and not 302 I.P.C.
Be it so, the revisionist has fullest liberty to raise his objection before the court below at the time of framing of charge. There is no illegality or perversity perceptible in the impugned order. I do not find any good reason to interfere in the order impugned.
The revision lacks merit and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.4.2022 M. Kumar
Digitally signed by MANISH KUMAR Date: 2022.04.08 10:29:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is illegal or perverse.
Whether the revisionist has an opportunity to raise objections before the court below.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
