This single-paragraph order dismisses an SLP where the petitioner was absent. The Court held that the courts below committed no error in summoning under specific IPC sections and saw no scope for interference.
Petition is dismissed.
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.
C 482 No. 399 of 2013
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
None is present on behalf of the petitioner, even in the revised call.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder for the State is present. By means of present petition, petitioners are assailing the summoning order dated 03.12.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as order dated 28.03.2013 passed by Additional Session Judge, Dehradun.
Learned Magistrate vide order dated 03.12.2012 was pleased to summon the petitioners under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC. Revision, challenging the summoning order, was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun by subsequent impugned order.
Having perused the entire material available on record, I am satisfied that both the courts below have not committed any jurisdictional or legal error while passing the impugned orders. Therefore, there is hardly any scope for interference with the impugned orders.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
(Alok Singh, J.) 28.05.2013
SKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the summoning orders passed below.
Whether jurisdictional or legal error exists in the impugned orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
State
Alok Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
