Single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking interference with an order allowing a revision against the rejection of a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. inquiry application. The court held no patent illegality or perversity was shown in the revisional order.
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:177833
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19477 of 2024
Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024 SP/-
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the Additional Sessions Special Judge allowing the revision and setting aside the Magistrate's order rejecting the Section 156
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar Yadav
State of U.P.
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
