Shravan Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 5903 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 48
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27955 of 2016
 
Applicant :- 	   Shravan Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- 	      Rajesh Kumar Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. In complaint case no. 575/9 of 2013 (Shravan Kumar Vs. Rambhul & others), ACJM, Court No.-1, Muzaffar Nagar had passed order dated 11.7.2013 by which six persons were summoned for prosecution of offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 452, 392, 307, 504, 506, 427 IPC. Against said order, Criminal Revision no. 85 of 2014 (Nitoo Vs. State of U.P. & another) was preferred, which was heard and allowed by judgement dated 30.01.2015 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-1, Muzaffar Nagar. In this judgement, the revisional court had held that the impugned order was passed without applying judicial mind. After hearing to the parties, revisional court had also held that order of summoning for Section 392 and 307 IPC appears not in accordance with law and on this ground revisional court had allowed the revision and remanded the matter for passing fresh order by trial court in accordance with law.

2. The judgment of revisional court dated 30.01.2015 passed in Criminal Revision no. 85 of 2015 has been challenged in present application by complainant of the original complaint case.

3. This contention of learned counsel for the applicant is acceptable that trial court is not supposed to give finding of fact and any observation on facts by it should not be considered by trial court at the time of passing of fresh order on merits.

4. Criminal revision, as a rule, is admitted for considering correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, or the regularity of proceedings of lower court, and not for directly considering the evidences and appreciating them like trial court or appellate court. Such evidences should not be considered in revision for substituting findings of facts of trial court.

5. After consideration of the order dated 11.7.2013 of trial court, it is found that after noting the facts of the case in the name of the witnesses, said court had passed order of cognizance and summoning, which is apparently without application of judicial mind, in which neither facts were discussed nor it was considered as to which accused had committed what overt act. Such order should have been speaking and after application of judicial mind. In these circumstances, the revisional court was not at error when it had passed the direction of quashing the order of trial court and of remanding the matter for fresh orders. But this direction of lower revisional court is erroneous when it had give mandate to pass fresh order in light of observations made in its judgment.

6. In view of above, this application is disposed of with direction to the trial court to pass fresh speaking order, after application of judicial mind, on merits of the case before it, without being influenced by any observation on merit of the case made in the judgement dated 30.01.2015 by revisional court.

Order Date :- 17.9.2016

Sanjeev