Disposed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow v. Sanjay Kumar and Another

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024CRLR/196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging the trial court's rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examining the scribe of the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer. The High Court issued notice to opposite parties and stayed the trial court proceedings pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Stay of trial court proceedings pending further orders.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 196 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sachindra Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the revisionist-State and perused the records.

¶6

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397 (1)/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist-State has challenged the validity of the order dated 30.11.2023, passed in Criminal Case No.393 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow whereby the application filed by the State under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examining the scribe of the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer for proving the charge sheet has been rejected.

¶7

The trial court has recorded in the order that the aforesaid persons have been examined as PW-4 and PW-8 and therefore the recall of witness for fulling up the lacuna in the prosecution case would not be in the interest of justice.

¶8

The learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the revisionist has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another: (2019) 6 SCC 203 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to enable the court to arrive at a just decision after discovering all relevant facts by obtaining proper proof of the facts.

¶9

The matter requires consideration.

¶10

Issue notice to the opposite parties, returnable at an early date.

¶11

Steps for service of notice shall be taken by the revisionist within one week from today.

¶12

List this case in the week commencing 22.04.2024.

¶13

As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing the proceedings Criminal Case No.393 of 2014, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow, pending before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow shall remain stayed.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Ram.

¶16

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow v. Sanjay Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow v. Sanjay Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kapil Awasthi @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Shanti Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Atul Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Raj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others