Smt. Avadhes Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And 25 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 18110 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 80
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3054 of 2015
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt. Avadhes Upadhyay
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 25 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Gaurav Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

List revised. Notice served upon opposite party no. 2 but none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.

This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17.7.2015 passed by Court of Special Judge, Agra in Misc. Case No.135 of 2015, (Smt. Avadhes Upadhyay vs. Gajendra and others) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by which application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has treated as complaint case.

It has been stated in the application that on 31.03.2015 at 4:30 pm, accused persons came in the house of the opposite with lathi and danda and rods and began to beat the husband of the revisionist and forcibly looted one chain, Bank FDR, Cheque Book, Pass Book and about Rs.30-35,000/- cash.

After considering facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that application be treated as complaint case and entire evidence and facts of the case is in the knowledge of the complainant, trial Court has relied on five rulings.

Learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance in the case of Anmol Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2021(1) ADJ 400. He submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case, cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 to 26.

Perused the impugned order and record. The matter is 8 years old. It appears from the facts of the present case in hand that facts are not similar to the case stated above, that matter relates to sexual assault. The said law will not help the revisionist. Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. treated as complaint is legal order. Lodging of the FIR in each case is not mandatory.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears no manifest error, illegality, material irregularity in the impugned order and requires no interference by this Court. The criminal revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

The criminal revision is accordingly, dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 21.11.2022

Monika