HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1175 of 2019
Revisionist :- Dayaram Gupta 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vyas Narayan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
This criminal revision has been filed with the prayer that the impugned judgment and order dated 10.06.2019, passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Room No. 17, Raebareli in Case No.1493 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Gupta and others), arising out of Case Crime No.22 of 2016, under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raebareli.
It is stated by learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists are the accused in Case No. 1493 of 2016 (State Vs. Pradeep Gupta and others), under Sections 498A, Section323, Section504, Section506 IPC Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Raebareli. It is further stated that on 10.06.2019 date was fixed in this case for framing of the charges. Accused revisionists were called in the Court and charges were framed against the revisionists. No opportunity of hearing was given. Even the revisionists had not engaged any counsel.
Opposing the prayer, learned A.G.A. has stated that 10.06.2019 was the date fixed for framing of the charges. Accused were called for framing of the charges. Charges were framed. Charges were read over. They heard and understood the same. They denied the charges and requested for trial. This finding has been recorded by the trial court while framing of charges. The very proceedings dated 10.06.2019 recorded by the trial court itself shows that the accused were present in the Court. The charges were read over and they were made to understand. They denied the charges. This itself shows that proper opportunity was given to them. However, they had not engaged any counsel to represent them in the Court. It is the fault on the part of the revisionists for which the court cannot be blamed. Charges were framed on 10.06.2019 in which proper opportunity was given and charges were framed.
In view of the above circumstances, there is no good ground for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 5.9.2019/ML