Disposed¶13

Dr Mithilesh Gaur v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2025CRLR/1279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLR No. 1279 of 2024; Allahabad High Court; Harvir Singh, J.; criminal revision disposed of; challenge to order of discharge rendered irrelevant; charge framed 13.02.2024; PW-1 and PW-2 examined; status report dated 21.09.2024; Additional Sessions Judge Kanpur Nagar; opportunity to defend preserved; decision dated 07.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No purpose whatsoever would be served by continuing the revision, as the order of discharge has become irrelevant following the advance of the trial. ¶9

Dr Mithilesh Gaur Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1279 of 2024

¶2

Dr Mithilesh Gaur

¶3

.....Revisionist(s)

¶4

V	ersus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Neeja Advocate,	Srivastava, Sr. Veerendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 90

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Veerendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

As per order dated 06.09.2024, passed by this Court, a status report was called from the concerned trial court. In compliance of the said order dated 06.09.2024, the report has been submitted by the concerned trial court on dated 21.09.2024.

¶8

As per the status report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, the charge against the concerned accused persons have been framed on 13.02.2024 and subsequent to framing the charge the testimony of two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have been completed. Even the status report is that of date 21.09.2024 and about one year has already gone. Least to say that probably another witnesses would have been examined by now i.e. after the lapse of about one year.

¶9

Under circumstances, no purpose whatsoever would be served to continue with this revision and so far as, order of discharge is concerned that has become irrelevant. In the circumstances, the revisionist will have reasonable and ample opportunity to defend his case by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with

¶10

CRLR No. 1279 of 2024

¶11

¶12

law.

¶13