Disposed

Satendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024A482/10010/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 156(3) CrPC was rejected by the trial court relying on a pre-existing FIR on unrelated facts. The revision against rejection did not consider the specific ground that the earlier FIR concerned different facts. The High Court found this illegality, set aside the revisional court's order, and remitted the matter for a fresh decision on the grounds raised in the revision mem

What the court decided

AI extract

Satendra Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119920

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10010 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Rishabh Narain Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was considered and rejected by an order dated 22.07.2019 passed by learned Trial Court and the relevant part thereof is mentioned herein after:-

¶9

" ससननगयनतथनपतनवललकनअवललकनककयनगयन।थनननककआखयनकनअन स नरआवनदक नननयनयनलयकनआदनशनन स नरथनननपरमसकदमनअपरनधससखयन 1019/17 धनरन 20, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 120 बलभन०दस०सस . बननमचनदशनखर , शकशशनखर , रकवशनखर , रनजशनखर , शलमतलशललनदनवल , रनजनशकसमनरशलवनसतवकनकवरदपसजलककतककगयल।ऐसन पतलतहलतनहहककआवनदकदनरनपनथरननपत 23.09.2017 कलपनकषतककगयल।ऐसनपतलत हलतनहहककआवनदकदनरनपनथरननपतगलततथययकनआधनरपरनयनयनलयममपसतसतककयन गयनहह।अततमनमलनकनतथयय - पररससथकतययकलदकषगतरखतनहहएपनथरननपतसवलकनरककयन जनननयलगयनहहहह।अततपनथरननपतखनररजककयनजनननयलगयहह। "

¶10

The above order was challenged before the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for applicant refers paragraph 6 of memo of revision, that a specific ground was taken that above referred criminal case was not related to facts of present case. For reference, paragraph 6 of it is reproduced herein after (A certified copy of revision is placed on record during hearing):-

¶11

“6. यह कक अधलनसथ नयनयनलय दनरन अपनन आदनश कदननसक 22.07.2019 मम मनत इस बनत कन उलनख करतन हहए कक थननन कक आखयन कन अन स नर एक अनय मसकदमन थननन पर मसकदमन अ०सस० 1019 सनन् 2017 अनतगरत धनरन 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 120 बल , तन०कह० बननम चनदशनखर आकद पसजलककत करनयन गयन जजसमम असनतम ररपलरर कदननसक 23.09.2017 पनकषत कक गयल हह ऐसन पतलत हलतन हह कक आवनदक दनरन पनथरननपत गलत तथयय कन आधनर पर नयनयनलय मम पसतसत ककयन गयन हह। कनगरननलकतनर कन पनथरननपत

¶12

अनतगरत धनरन 156(3) जन०फफौ० कनरसत करनन मम कननूल भनूल कक गयल हह जल मसकदमन न अ०सस० -1019 सनन् 2017 पनूवर मम थननन पर दजर करनयन गयन थन वह दनूसरन तथयय कन आधनर पर दजर करनयन गयन थन तथन जल वतरमनन पनथरननपत अनतगरत धनरन 156(3) जन०फफौ० कनगरननलकतनर कन दनरन नयनयनलय मम पसतसत ककयन गयन थन वह दनूसरन तथनय कन आधनर पर पसतसत ककयन गयन थन। ककनतस अधलनसथ नयनयनलय नन कबनन इस बनत कन उलनख ककयन हहयन कक पसतसत ककयन गयन पनथरननपत मम लगनयन गयन आरलपल कन आधनर पर अकभयसक्तगण कन कवरद कलई ससजनय अपरनध गकठित नहह हलतन हह , कनगरननलकतनर कन पनथरननपत अनतगरत धनरन 156(3) जन०फफौ० खनररज करनन मम भनूल कक गयल हह।

¶13

यह कक पत्यनक दशन मम अधलनसथ नयनयनलय दनरन पनररत ककयन गयन आदनश कदननसक 22.07.2019 गलत , गहरकननूल एवस पतनवलल पर उपलब्ध सनक्ष्य कन कवपरलत हलनन कन कनरण न कनरसत ककए जननन यलगय हह अधलनसथ नयनयनलय दनरन सनक्ष्य कन आसकलन सहल ढसग सन नहह ककयन गयन हह और वनदग्रसत आदनश पनररत करतन समय अपनन मनससतष्क कन पयलग सहल ढसग सन नहह ककयन गयन हह।

¶14

यह कक वनदग्रसत आदनश कन कवरद नयनयनलय शलमनन मम यह पथम कनगरननल हह वनदग्रसत आदनश कन कवरद मनननलय उच्च नयनयनलय इलनहनबनद मम कलई कनगरननल पसतसत नहह कक गयल हह और न हल कवचनरनधलन हह और न हल खनररज कक गयल हह।

¶15

अतत उपरलक्त एवस अनय कनरणय सन कनगरननल सवलकनर कक जनकर अधलनसथ नयनयनलय कन दनरन पनररत ककयन गयन आदनश कदननसक 22.07.2019 कनरसत ककए जननन कक ककपन कक जनवन। " 4. Learned counsel for applicant refers the order passed on revision petition that the aforesaid ground was not taken note, despite it was argued.

¶16

I have carefully perused impugned order passed by Revisional Court and I am satisfied that above referred argument has substance, since only ground of rejection of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was about lodging an earlier FIR and challenge to it was not considered, despite it was specifically mentioned in memo of revision.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, illegality occurred in impugned order passed by Revisional Court, which is accordingly, set aside and matter is remitted back to pass a fresh order in light of grounds taken in the memo of Revision.

¶18

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 SK Srivastava

¶20

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

Satendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Satendra Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmveer and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Manjeet Dubey vs State of Up and Another

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Munna Lal and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Indra Bahadur vs State of Up and Another