Dismissed

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2024/67/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge dismissed the challenge against the trial court order rejecting discharge. The Court held that the claim of unsoundness of mind lacks evidentiary support and discharge consideration is based on police report, not defense evidence.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Impugned order of 08.11.2023 upheld.

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21725

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 67 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Order on IA-01/24:

¶7

Heard Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Parul Kanth, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3.

¶8

The office has reported that the revision has been filed with a delay of eight days. The application for condonation of delay is supported by a duly sworn affidavit and the cause shown for delay in filing the revision appears to be sufficient.

¶9

The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 have no objection to the application.

¶10

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned. Now, this court proceeds to decide the revision on its merits.

¶11

Order on memo of revision:

¶12

By means of the instant revision filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revision has assailed the validity of the impugned

¶13

order dated 08.11.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, Unnao in Criminal Case No.562 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Maurawa, District Unnao, whereby the application for discharge of the revisionist under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶14

The revision has been filed through next friend of the revisionist who is his son claiming that the revisionist is a mentally retarded person. The revisionist had moved an application through next friend his wife Smt. Rajpati before the learned trial court stating that he is a person of unsound mind since the year 2013. He is under treatment of a psychiatrist since 15.05.2018. The complainant-opposite party no.3 had deposited the disputed amount in the bank account of the complainant and he himself withdrawn it. The Investigating Officer has not conducted the investigation in the matter properly.

¶15

In support of the contention that the revisionist is a person of unsound mind some medical documents have been annexed with the revision. The medical documents annexed with the revision indicates complaint of anxiety and hypertension. No medical document mentions that the revisionist is suffering from mental retardation or unsoundness of mind.

¶16

While deciding an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. the court has to consider the police report and the documents annexed with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and it may examine the accused and if upon consideration of the aforesaid material it appears to the Magistrate that the charges levelled against the accused are groundless he may be discharged. The defense evidence cannot be looked into by the Magistrate at the stage of considering a discharge application.

¶17

The discharge in the present case has been moved on the ground that the revisionist is a person of unsound mind and even if this court examines the document produced by the revisionist in support of this contention, this contention is not supported by any evidence produced by the revisionist. Therefore, the claim of unsoundness of mind of the revisionist is highly disputed question of fact regarding which no finding can be given by this court. Therefore, I find no error in the impugned order dated 08.11.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Purwa, Unnao. The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 12.3.2024 Ram.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sachin Sharma (Husband) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P. and Another

Ram Bilas Alias Mithun Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Civil Sedcret. Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another