SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Neetu & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 19 December, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 27

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 2147 of 2012

Revisionist :- Neetu Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Kakkar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

This criminal revision has been preferred for quashing the  order dated 7.6.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7,Bijnor, in S.T. No.634 of 2010, under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 342, 307/34, 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shivala Kala, District Bijnor, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bijnor.

This Court had stayed the proceeding qua two accused-revisionists. 

It is submitted that they were first named in the FIR and during investigation, their names were deleted. At  the later stage the two unmarried girls have been named by witness PW-1 and PW-2 and that is how the impugned order arraying them as accused is passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be used sparingly and as no cogent evidence is there the application could not have been allowed.

I have perused the order impugned and the application made for arraying the revisionist by the original complainant.

The summoning order  and the order arraying the two revisionists as accused cannot be said to be bad. There is prima facie evidence which disclosed their involvement in a finding given by the Trial Court and nothing  contrary is shown to this to allow this matter.

The Apex Court in (2010)SCC 512 Suman Versus State of Rajasthan has laid down the  principles where Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. There is satisfaction recorded by the learned Trial Judge and, therefore, the order cannot be quashed.

This criminal revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously. 

Order Date :- 19.12.2018/Mukesh

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation