Petitioner's Section 138 NI Act complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 256 CrPC; his revision against that order was dismissed as maintainable only by appeal. The court upheld that the order is an acquittal appealable under Section 378(4) and allowed him to approach the appellate forum.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192847
Court No. - 85
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8074 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Shukla,Shikhar Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
"i) set aside the order dated 23.05.2024, passed by learned Session Judge, Hapur in Criminal Revision no. 169 of 2023, titled Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi, v. Deepak Kashyap and Anr.
ii) direct the learned Session Judge, Hapur to re-adjudicate Criminal Revision no. 169 of 2023 on merits and pass reasoned and speaking order, within a fixed stipulated period of time."
which appeal may be filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Shaswat
Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether dismissal of a Section 138 NI Act complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is an acquittal appealable under Section 378(4), or challengeable by revision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abhishek Mishra alias Pintu vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Referred
Application u/s 482 no. 3099 of 2024
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharmendra Kumar Tyagi
State of U.P.
Deepak Kashyap
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
