Menuddin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 21681 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Menuddin And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 July, 2024

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106819
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2743 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Menuddin And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amir Khan,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

1. Even in the revised call, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 despite name of his counsel is printed in the cause list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.03.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special (Dacoity Affected Area), Court No. 8, Budaun in Session Case No. 841 of 2021 (State Vs. Ahmad Miyan), arising out of Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Vajirganj, District Budaun, whereby application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of State was allowed and revisionists have been summoned to face the trial in the aforesaid crime.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant with the delay of nine days against four persons including the revisionists herein without any plausible explanation of delay, thereafter, the Investigating Officer after recording statements of injured informant and other injured witnesses and after collecting call detail reports submitted charge sheet only against two persons in which names of revisionist do not find place. He further submits that on the submission of charge sheet the learned Magistrate took cognizance and thereafter case was put for trial. After examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 the informant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionists, whereupon the learned trial court without considering the statement of injured namely Dilwari Begum (P.W.2) and the evidence collected during investigation and without considering the material available on record allowed the aforesaid application and summoned the revisionists vide impugned order. Thus, it is argued that the impugned judgment and order requires interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The learned Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, summoned the revisionist on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order and there appears no illegality in the same.

6. Perusal of the order impugned shows that the learned Judge while summoning the revisionist vide impugned order has observed that the evidence adduced by three prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief discloses active participation of revisionist in the alleged incident. Thus, there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the order impugned and the same has rightly been passed by the court concerned after considering the entire material available on record. Moreover, the revisionist has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the order impugned, as such, no case is made out for interference. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. Dismissed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 2.7.2024

Mustaqeem.