In Criminal Revision No. 1319 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court rejected the appeal by Laxmi Shanker Upadhyay and others against the dismissal of their discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., holding that the stage was premature.
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. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1319 of 2023
Revisionist :- Laxmi Shanker Upadhyay And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivam Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Mr. Shivam Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 passed by A.C.J.M (J.D.)/J.M-10, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.159 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379 IPC, Police Station Jansa, District Varanasi whereby the learned court below has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted earlier on 17.11.2015 the wife of revisionist no.1 and mother of revisionist nos.2 to 4 have filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the court below against the opposite party no.2 and his family members, which was treated as complaint case. He has further submitted that the revisionist no.1 has also lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2 in respect of the incident occurred on 28.09.2015 in which the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the opposite party no.2 under Sections 323, 504, 308, 342, 506 and 325 IPC. He has further submitted that due to this reason, as a counterblast, the opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 04.12.2015 in respect of the incident occurred on 24.10.2015 and the learned Magistrate while treating the application as Complaint Case has illegally summoned the revisionists without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Being aggrieved, the revisionists approached this Court by filing Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.13330 of 2018 and this Court quashed the proceeding only against one Smt. Shashikala Devi Upadhyay while Court has refused to quash the proceeding against other revisionists. Thereafter, the revisionists have filed discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. but the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2023, hence, the instant revision.
Mr. R.P. Mishra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer
made by learned counsel for the revisionists and has submitted that the said discharge application was not supported with any injury report and the ground taken in the discharge application are subject to evidence, which cannot be adjudged at this stage. Therefore, the court below has rightly dismissed the discharge application of the revisionists. There is no no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned, which may call for any interference by this Court.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that the court below has rightly dismissed the discharge application of the revisionists on the ground of premature stage. There is no illegally of infirmity in the order impugned which may call for any interference by this Court.
The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Ajeet
Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's dismissal of a discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. at a premature stage.
Whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the order rejecting the discharge application in a complaint trial.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Laxmi Shanker Upadhyay and 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Ajeet Kumar Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
