Kallu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kallu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction to respondent no. 2 to re-conduct the medical examination of the injured Ritik Kesharwani by a panel of three members of a medical board, and to a stay of Session Case No. 618 of 2023 pending before the District & Session Judge, Chitrakoot. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since learned counsel for the applicant was not well conversant with the substantial facts of the case (including whether any application for re-medical examination had ever been made or rejected), he had no locus to seek the said prayer through the instant application.

Key takeaways

No application for re-medical examination of the injured had ever been preferred by the applicant before the learned Magistrate concerned; the applicant already has an alternative remedy for seeking that relief.ratio¶10
The application lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application U/S 482 No. 42123 of 2024 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:141698), Kallu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided on 19.8.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J., Allahabad High Court: The applicant-accused sought a direction to respondent no. 2 for re-conduct of the medical examination of the injured (informant's son, Ritik Kesharwani) by a panel of three members of a medical board, on the plea that the injury report prepared by a private hospital was not genuine and correct, and further sought stay of Session Case No. 618 of 2023 (State vs. Kallu Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 193 of 2023 under sections 307 IPC and 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, PS Mau, District Chitrakoot, pending before the District & Session Judge, Chitrakoot. On a precise query, counsel for the applicant admitted ignorance as to whether any application for re-medical examination had ever been preferred or rejected. The Court held that counsel, not being conversant with the substantial facts, had no locus to press the prayer through the instant application; that perusal of records showed no such application had ever been moved before the learned Magistrate concerned; and that the applicant already had an alternative remedy. The application was accordingly dismissed as lacking merit.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141698

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42123 of 2024

Applicant :- Kallu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pusp Raj Singh,Rajesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct respondent no. 2 to re-conduct medical examination of the injured Ritik Kesharwani by the panel of three members of medical board. Further prayer has been made to stay the proceeding of Session Case no. 618 of 2023 (State vs. Kallu Yadav) arising out of Case Crime no. 193 of 2023 under sections 307 IPC & 3/25/27 of Arms Act at PS- Mau, Dsitrict Chitrakoot pending in court of District & Session Judge, Chitrakoot.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submitted that in present case injury report of injured (informant's son) has been prepared by a private hospital which is not genuine and correct and as such present petition has been preferred seeking re-conduct of medical examination of injured by panel of three member of medical board.

During course of argument precise query has been raised before learned counsel for applicant that whether any application has ever been preferred at the behest of applicant seeking re-medical examination of injured before any competent authority and if yes, whether the same has been rejected or not? Learned counsel replied that he is not aware in this regard.

Once, learned counsel for applicant is not well conversant with the substantial facts of the present case, he has no locus to seek aforesaid prayer through instant application. Moreover, perusal of records reveals that no such application has ever been preferred at the behest of applicant before learned Magistrate concerned seeking re-medical examination of injured. Thus, applicant is already having alternative remedy for seeking aforesaid prayer.

In view of foregoing discussion, present application lacks merit hence dismissed .

Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Shaswat

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