Dismissed

Smt Twinkle Dikshit v. Ved Prakash Sharma and 7 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A227/6137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Article 227 petition challenged the revisional court's dismissal of an application seeking summons for co-accused. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the remedy for summoning other accused lies under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the current challenge is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 227 was dismissed for lack of merit and maintainability.

Smt Twinkle Dikshit vs Ved Prakash Sharma… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:166273

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6137 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Twinkle Dikshit Respondent :- Ved Prakash Sharma And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anamika Pandey,Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA.

¶7

The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by learned Additional and Session Judge, Court No.7, Agra in Criminal Revision No.733 of 2022 (Smt. Twinkle Dixit Vs. Ved Prakash and 7 others) through which order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judaical Magistrate- III, Agra in Case No.20 of 2022 (Smt. Twinkle Dixit Vs. Ved Prakash and others), has been upheld.

¶8

It is the case of petitioner that at the time of preferring Complaint Case No.20 of 2022, petitioner arrayed seven proposed accused persons but after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned court concerned passed the summoning order 10.11.2022 only against respondent no.1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.11.2022, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.733 of 2022 with a prayer that all the other persons who have been mentioned in the complaint case other than respondent no.1, may also be directed to be summoned by learned court concerned and by way of not summoning them, patent illegality has been committed by learned court concerned. The said revision preferred at the behest of petitioner, was dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 25.11.2023 which impugned the present petition.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without considering the prayer made in the criminal revision, learned revisional court dismissed the same in spite of crystal clear averment available in the statements recorded under Section 200

¶10

and 202 Cr.P.C. through which, the names of all the proposed accused who have been arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 7 herein, have been taken and as such, impugned order may be liable to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for petitioner by submitting that the basic order which has been challenged before learned revisional court, is the summoning order through which respondent no.1 was summoned and without having any specific prayer under Section 319 Cr.P.C., order dated 10.11.2022 cannot be put under challenge and as such, the finding recorded at the time of passing order dated 25.11.2023 is justified that discussion of learned court concerned cannot be put under challenge that other proposed co-accused have not been summoned, rather the liberty of preferring specific application under the specific provision as mentioned in Section 319 Cr.P.C. will always be available before petitioner for placing his prayer before learned court concerned at appropriate stage and at this stage, criminal revision preferred at the behest of petitioner, is not at all maintainable.

¶12

After having rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and after perusal of the record, one thing is crystal clear that order dated 10.11.2022 has not been appended with this petition and the same is not put under challenge but it has been stated by learned counsel for petitioner that order dated 10.11.2022 is merged with the order impugned in the present petition dated 25.11.2023. This analogy in shape of merger of order, is not applicable in the instant matter since the order of summoning specifically passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C., is not trail of the prayer made before learned revisional court, rather it is the specific separate prayer made before learned revisional court for seeking summoning of the other proposed accused who have been mentioned at the time of preferring complaint case at the behest of petitioner.

¶13

The finding recorded by learned revisional court is absolutely justified that at this stage, discussion of learned court concerned cannot be put under challenge that after recording statements under Section 202 and 202 Cr.P.C., all the persons who have been

¶14

arrayed in the complaint case as proposed accused, may be summoned. The arguments raised by learned AGA is also justified that petitioner has not availed the remedy as provided under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as available to her.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Twinkle Dikshit v. Ved Prakash Sharma and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Twinkle Dikshit v. Ved Prakash Sharma and 7 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

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and Another

Mister and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Badama Devi vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mohd. Alim vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shan Mohammad vs State of U.P. and Another