Allahabad High Court
Omprakash Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84379
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3404 of 2023
Revisionist :- Omprakash Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Krishna Gopal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Brij Raj Singh,G.A.,Mushir Khan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Gopal, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Brij Raj Singh, the learned counsel representing the prospective accused i.e. opposite parties 2 to 4.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-4, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 649 of 2021 (State Vs. Aakash Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithrichainpur, District-Bareilly, whereby the application dated 19.11.2022 filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Paper No.- 12-Kha) for summoning of the prospective accused to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial has been rejected.
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 28.06.2021, a prompt FIR dated 28.06.2021 was lodged by first informant/revisionist Om Prakash Singh and was registered as Case Crime No. 268 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithrichainpur, District-Bareilly. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons namely- (1) Akash Yadav, (2) Sukhveer Singh, (3) Amarwati and (4) Vikash Yadav have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that marriage of Kaushiki Devi (daughter of first informant-Om Prakash Singh) was solemnized with Akash Yadav on 26.11.2020 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given. However, the in-laws of the daughter of first informant were dissatisfied with the same. Additional demand of dowry to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs and a bullet motorcycle was raised. As the demand of additional dowry could not be fulfilled, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon the daughter of first informant. Ultimately, the daughter of first informant died.
6. After above mentioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of chapter 12 Cr.P.C. He visited the place of occurrence and thereafter recovered the dead body. Subsequent to above, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the body of deceased was conducted, which was followed by the postmortem of the body of deceased. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, the cause of death of deceased is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. One internal ante-mortem injury (abrasion) was found on the right arm of deceased. Having undertaken the aforesaid preliminary exercise, Investigating Officer, thereafter, recorded the statements of first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of only one of the named accused namely Akash Yadav (husband of the deceased) is established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby aforementioned named accused Akash Yadav alone has been charge sheeted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithrichainpur, District-Bareilly, whereas, rest of the named accused were exculpated.
7. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, resultantly concerned Magistrate in the light of the provisions contained in Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Consequently, Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2021 (State Vs. Akash Yadav), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithrichainpur, District-Bareilly came to be registered and is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court-4, Bareilly.
8. Concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, who denied the same. Consequently, the trial procedure commenced.
9. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charge framed against the charge sheeted accused, adduced two witnesses namely PW-1 Omprakash Singh (first informant/father of the deceased) and PW-2 Ganesh (brother of the deceased). After the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of aforesaid witnesses were recorded, prosection/first informant filed an application dated 19.11.2022 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying therein that since the complicity of other named but not charge sheeted accused is also established in the crime in question, therefore, they be also summoned to face trial.
10. It appears that no objection to the aforesaid application was filed by the charge sheeted accused. Court below upon evaluation of the allegations made in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the light of material on record and particularly, the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 came to the conclusion that no good ground for summoning the prospective accused is made out. Accordingly, by means of the impugned order dated 03.04.2023, Court below rejected the aforementioned application filed by the prosecution/first informant.
11. Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 03.04.2023, revisionist, who is the first informant, has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
12. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, since present case is a case of dowry death. The occurrence has taken place in the marital home of the daughter of first informant. Therefore, there can be no eye witness of the occurrence on behalf of the prosecution. As such, the complicity of the prospective accused in the crime in question can only be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. However, in ignorance of above, Court below has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/first informant primarily on the ground that since PW-1 and PW-2 are not an eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, no cast-iron case for summoning of the prospective accused is made out. The same is manifestly illegal. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.
13. Court below has erroneously concluded that no specific allegations have been made against the prospective accused with regard to the demand of dowry and commission of cruelty upon the deceased. The same is manifestly erroneous inasmuch as, in order to prove cruelty, it is not necessary to prove the specific instances of cruelty but commission of cruelty can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it judiciously, which has vitiated the order impugned. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.
14. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 to 4 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. They submit that the order impugned in present criminal revision is perfectly just and legal. Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution as no cost-iron case for summoning of the prospective was made out. Findings returned by Court below in the order impugned in support of the conclusion drawn are just and legal. The same cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that no interference is warranted by this Court in present revision. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
15. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 to 4 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the primary issue, which arises for determination in present criminal revision is: What are the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C.? As a corollary to above, Court will also have to consider;-Whether the order impugned is within the established parameters or not?
16. Parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C. have been considered time and again by the Supreme Court. The chronology of same is as under:
(i) Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Five Judges Bench)
(ii) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Five Judges Bench)
Paragraphs 4,5,6,6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6.
(iii) Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 568
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 22.
(iv) Jogendra yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2015) 9 SCc 244
Paragraph 13.
(v) Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706
Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15.
(vi) S Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226
Paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
(vii) Deepu @ Deepak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 393
Paragraph 7.
(viii) Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2019) 4 SCC 329
Paragraph 8 and 9.
(ix) Periyasamai and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342
Paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(x) Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 556
Paragraphs 13 and 14.
(xi) Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368
Paragraphs 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 7 and 8.
(xii) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638
Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27
(xiii) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 806
Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17
(xiv) Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 805
Paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
(xv) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) SCC Online Sc 390
Paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.
(xvi) Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12 SCC 644
Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.
(xvii) Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337
Paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17
(xviii) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632
Paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
(xix) Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Vs. The State of U.P. and another, 2021 SCC Online (SC) 741
Supreme Court remanded the matter before Sessions Judge for decision afresh.
(xx). Sagar Vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine 289
(xxi). Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 (Five Judges Bench),
Paragraphs 7, 37, 38 and 41.
(xxii). Jhuru and Others Vs. Qarim and Another, (2023) 5 SCC 406,
(xxiii). Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 (7) SCC 344,
(xxiv). Vikas Rathi Vs. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 211,
(xxv) Yashonandan Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108,
Paragraphs 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43.
(xxvi) Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888,
(xxvii). N. Manogar and Another Vs. Inspector of Police and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 174
17. With the aid of above, the Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of impugned order dated 03.04.2023 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-4, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 649 of 2021 (State Vs. Aakash Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 268 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Bithrichainpur, District-Bareilly, whereby, Court below has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist.
18. Before proceeding to do so, it must be noticed that following issues stand settled as per judgements of the Supreme Court mentioned herein above and, therefore, they are not required to be dealt with by this Court.
19. A non-charge sheeted accused can be summoned by the Court of Sessions after the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and for that purpose need not wait for the evidence of the witnesses to be recorded so that non-charge sheeted accused could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide Five Judges Bench Judgment in Dharam Pal (Supra).
20. Ambit and scope of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. now stand crystallized by Supreme Court in paragraph-34 of the judgement in Manjeet Singh (supra).
21. A prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness without getting his examination-in-chief recorded vide Hardeep Singh (Supra).
22. The Court while summoning a prospective accused must come to the conclusion that a prima-facie case for summoning of a prospective accused is made out and in this regard, the Court must record it's satisfaction in consonance with the observation made in paragraph 106 of the judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra).
23. Though in view of the law laid down by the Five Judges Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) that a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness but in case, if the statement of the witness, who have deposed before Court below was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then in such a circumstance, the Court must draw a parallel in between the deposition of the witness as well as his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition or not, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
24. The Court must consider the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as it is a relevant material, vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
25. A prospective accused can be summoned only if, an inference of guilt of the accused can be drawn as per the material on record vide Brijendra Singh (Supra).
26. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary discretionary power, which should be exercised sparingly vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
27. A prospective accused should not be summoned by a Court by exercising it's jurisdiction in a casual and cavalier fashion but diligently vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
28. Court can summon a prospective accused by exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when some strong and cogent evidence had emerged against a prospective accused and not merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question vide S Mohammad Ishpahani (Supra).
29. In the judgments referred to above, there is a common thread that the Court can scrutinized the evidence on record while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further a prospective accused can be summoned only if a prima-facie case for summoning of a prospective accused is made out.
30. The evidence of an injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, the said statement is not to be discarded lightly. Vide paragraph 37 of judgement in Manjeet Singh (Supra).
31. An accused who has been summoned by the Court in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C., cannot claim discharge vide S. Mohammaed Ispahani (Supra) and Vikas Rathi (Supra).
32. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira (Supra), a subsequent Bench of Supreme Court opined that the law laid down by Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (Supra) case requires re-consideration as certain questions remain unanswered in the Constitution Bench Judgement and further the parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C need to be re-laid down.
33. In Rajesh and Others (Supra), it has been held that failure on the part of first informant in not filing a protest petition against the charge-sheet, cannot be treated as an impediment or bar in exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C.
34. The reference made by a Two Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638, was answered by another Five Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289. The Court held that "The power under Section 319 CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.". Thereafter, the Court also laid down the guidelines to be followed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
35. A prospective accused is not required to be heard before an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is passed against him vide Yashodhan Singh and Others (Supra).
36. In Sandeep Kumar (Supra), the Court after noticing paragraphs 95 to 106 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra), considered the ingredients of Section 149 and with reference to above, upheld the order of trial Court, on the finding that in case, a person is a member of an unlawful assembly, the ingredients of Section 149 IPC are satisfied and therefore, no material qua the innocence of such an accused is required to be looked into at the stage of deciding an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
37. Having noted the settled position, the Court is now required to consider whether on the basis of depositions of PW-1, Mustafa (first informant) and PW-2 (Prosecutrix) and the material on record, Court below could have summoned the prospective accused and vice versa i.e. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist was liable to be allowed and the view taken to the contrary is illegal. As an ancillary issue, Court will also have to consider as to whether court below has exercised it's jurisdiction "diligently" or as termed by Apex Court in a "casual and cavalier fashion."
38. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 to 4 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has decided the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution only after the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Om Prakash Singhk (first informant/father of the deceased) and PW-2 Ganesh (Brother of the deceased) had been recorded. As such, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 falls within the realm of legal evidence. Furthermore, the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) has held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be considered by Court on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness only and Court need not wat for the entire prosecution evidence to be recorded. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution on the basis of the deposititons of PW-1 and PW-2 only.
39. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, which is a judgment by a Five Judges Bench has further observed that before proceeding to summon a prospective accused, the Court must record a satisfaction that a prima-facie case for summoning the prospective accused is made out. The said satisfaction should be in consonance with paragraph 106 of the said report. For ready reference, paragraph 106 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra) is extracted herein under:-
"106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
40. With reference to above, this Court finds that Court below upon evaluation of material on record and the allegations made in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has rightly recorded a finding that as per the material on record, no such satisfaction as is required in law for summoning a prospective accused can be recorded. In view of above, prima-facie, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned.
41. Even though, the law with regard to the summoning of a prospective accused was crystallized by the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and the Bench has formulated the same in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6 of the report yet the parameters with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were subsequently, made more stringent but in favour of accused by the subsequent Two Judges Bench Judgments of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and S Mohammad Ishpahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 22. On a conjoint reading of the aforementioned judgments, the Court upon consideration of the law laid down in Hardeep Singh (Supra) has gone steps further and limited the scope with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by formulating (a) a prospective accused can be summoned on the statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness (b) however, in a case, where an accused is named in the F.I.R. but exculpated by the Investigating Officer in the police report, then Court must consider the plethora of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as the said material is a relevant material (c) before summoning a prospective accused on the basis of the deposition of prosecution witness, the Court must draw a parallel in between the statement of such witness recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and his deposition before Court below to find out whether something new has emerged in the deposition of the prosecution witness than what was stated by him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., (d) the prospective accused cannot be summoned merely on the basis of his complicity in the crime in question but only if, an inference of guilt of prospective accused can be gathered from the evidence up to that stage, (e) the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is an extraordinary power and should be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner, (f) the Courts should exercise their jurisdiction diligently and not in a "casual and cavalier" fashion, (g) it is only when strong and cogent evidence has emerged against a prospective accused, which is much more than mere complicity of a prospective accused in the crime in question can he be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
42. Apart from above, this Court finds that no specific allegations with regard to demand of dowry and commission of cruelty could be specified by the first informant (PW-1) and the brother of deceased (PW-2) in their depositions before Court below. At this stage, it could be relevant to refer the judgment of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein the Court has observed as under in paragraph 18 of the report;-
"18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution"
43. When the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are examined in the light of aforesaid observations, this Court finds that no improvement has been made by the prosecution witneses examined up to this stage than what was stated by them in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As such, no such material has emerged on the record to show that specific demand of dowry was made by the prospective accused as well as the specific manner in which, cruelty was committed by the prospective accused upon the deceased. In view of above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. It is by now well settled that in order to bring home a charge under Section 304-B IPC on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first dislodge it's primary burden. From the perusal of the statements of two prosecution witnesses examined up to this stage, coupled with the findings recorded by Court below that prima-facie, the prospective accused were not present at the time and place of occurrence, therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Court below in rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined up to this stage, the cause of differences in between the daughter of the first informant and her husband was the illicit relationship of the husband with another girl, who is said to be a relative. On the above conspectus, this Court finds that no cast-iron case for summoning of the prospective accused was made out. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. Consequently, the Court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor it has exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned.
44. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
45. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
Vinay
