Javahralal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 16432 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Javahralal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84316
 
Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1643 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Javahralal And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Rathore,Sanjeev Kumar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
 

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Amit Kumar, learned AGA for the State as well as perused the records.

3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionists to allow the revision and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Court No.1, Kasganj in S.T. No.579 of 2021 (State vs. Bobby @ Shivendra and others) in Case Crime No.246 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Dholana, District Kasganj, whereby the revisionists herein have been summoned by invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C..

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has stated that the revisionists have nothing to do with the said offence. Revisionist no.1 is the father of revisionist no.2. It is alleged that the revisionist no.2 had used the gun belonging to the revisionist no.1. The said allegations are per se false. Revisionist no.1 has been wrongly shown to be the member of the unlawful assembly. No role has been assigned to the revisionist no.1, as such the order dated 02.03.2024 is without application of mind. Learned counsel has further stated that the revisionists have no criminal antecedents and the revisionist no.1 is an ex-Army man and is 70 years old.

5. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the instant revision on the ground that the revisionists were named in the FIR and after the statements of the witnesses of fact that too after their cross-examination the revisionists have been summoned.

6. The order is a detailed order and after hearing the parties and taken into consideration the fact that no proper and cogent reason has been put forwarded by the learned counsel for the revisionists indicating that the said order is perverse or illegal. As such, no intervention in the said order dated 02.03.2024 is warranted under these circumstances.

7. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is devoid of merits and is rejected.

8. Learned counsel has stated that the revisionists may be permitted to apply for bail in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil.

Order Date :- 9.5.2024

Priya

(Krishan Pahal, J.)