Devi Prasad Gupta vs State of Up and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12191

Court No. - 79

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5750 of 2024

Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State respondents.

¶7

The instant petitioner has been preferred for challenging the order dated 19.8.2023 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D),VII/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Case No.619 of 2022, (Devi Prasad vs. Brijesh Kumar) alongwith judgment and order dated 19.3.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), II, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.365 of 2023.

¶8

The factual matrix of the matter derived that second application preferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been negated on the ground that being the second application for same set of facts with the same prayer which has already been decided vide order dated 5.6.2015 through which the application has been allowed and the case has been directed to be registered as complaint case for recording statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C, matter has been posted for 7.7.2015.

¶9

After providing several opportunities for recording statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C and after gap of near about two years when petitioner failed to put himself for recording statement and no witnesses have ever been produced by the petitioner for recording their statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C, complaint case no.1884 of 2016 under Section 203 Cr.P.C,. has been dismissed vide order dated 12.6.2017 by A.C.J.M, (IV), Jaunpur.

¶10

It is the admitted fact that no revision has ever been preferred for challenging order dated 12.6.2017.

¶11

After the gap of near about five years fresh application for same relief upon similar facts, again preferred by the petitioner and the same has again been dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2023 by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) VIII/Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur and thereafter once the petitioner preferred criminal revision no.365 of 2023, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), IInd, Jaunpur.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the orders which impugned the present petition submitted that petitioner being the business man handed over entire matter to his counsel, but the same has not been taken care by him and the outcome of the initial application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has never been informed by learned counsel engaged by petitioner before learned concerned court available at Jaunpur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh & Others vs. Ranjit Kaur 2001 Vol.2 SCC 570 .

¶14

Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and tried to demonstrate the jdgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Apex Court extended the rights for preferring second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, if the same has been dismissed in default but in the instant matter, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C preferred at the behest of petitioner was allowed and the matter has been directed to be registered as complaint case but even after availing ample opportunity, petitioner failed to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C and at the same time no witnesses mentioned in the narration of the

¶15

application has been put for recording their statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Learned concerned court decided the complaint case under Section 203 Cr.P.C i.e, on merits and not on the basis of non-prosecution.

¶17

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA, the distinction made by learned AGA is quite justified. By bare perusal of the records it is crystal clear that application preferred at the behest of petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was allowed and thereafter complaint case has been decided against the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C, meaning thereby the merit of the matter has already been considered by learned concerned court and thereafter a fresh application which has been decided by learned court of A.C.J.M, (IV), Jaunpur vide order dated 12.6.2017 is also justified and there is hardly any infirmity available in the order passed by the learned revisional authority who uphold the order passed by learned court concerned.

¶18

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, no interference is required by this court in the order which impugned in the present petition.

¶19

Petition lacks merits hence dismissed .

¶20

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Rakesh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devi Prasad Gupta v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Prasad Gupta v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Priti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pratibha Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Pooja Kushwaha and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Geeta and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Rajnandani and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

X Juvenile vs Chunnu @ Abhishek Shukla