What has been said in the application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. can not be taken as gospel truth nor looked into because the defence of the accused can not be considered at the stage of section 245 Cr.P.C.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2962 of 2013
Dilshad & 4 Others Vs State Of U.P. & Another
Dated :- 10.12.2013
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Criminal Complaint Case No.1119 of 2011 (Armana Vs. Dilshad & Others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Amroha.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the order passed by the court below is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, that the learned Magistrate has totally failed to inquire the matter as provided under section 202 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that it is duty of the Magistrate that prior to summoning the accused persons, he should apply his mind and do not pass the summoning order in a routine manner. With these arguments the revision has been pressed.
Some factual aspects have been mentioned in the affidavit filed alongwith the revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist wants that this Court should look into those factual aspects in this revision. My attention has been drawn towards 1989 CRL.L.J. 1330, Gauhati High Court, Chandra Nath Sarma and another Vs.Mahesh Nath Sarma.
The revision has been opposed by the learned AGA.
At the very outset, I have to say that the above mentioned case law has absolutely no application in the present case. From perusal of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the learned Magistrate I do not find that the charges levelled are groundless. What has been said in the application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. can not be taken as gospel truth nor looked into because the defence of the accused can not be considered at the stage of section 245 Cr.P.C.
After a careful consideration of the record I am of the view that this revision is devoid of merits and it is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Order Date :- 10.12.2013
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2962 of 2013
Dilshad & 4 Others Vs State Of U.P. & Another
Dated :- 10.12.2013
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to quash the order dated 31.7.2013 passed by the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Amroha in Criminal Complaint Case No.1119 of 2011 (Armana Vs. Dilshad & Others) under sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & D.P.Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Amroha.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
It has been submitted from the side of the revisionist that the order passed by the court below is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law, that the learned Magistrate has totally failed to inquire the matter as provided under section 202 Cr.P.C. It has further been submitted that it is duty of the Magistrate that prior to summoning the accused persons, he should apply his mind and do not pass the summoning order in a routine manner. With these arguments the revision has been pressed.
Some factual aspects have been mentioned in the affidavit filed alongwith the revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist wants that this Court should look into those factual aspects in this revision. My attention has been drawn towards 1989 CRL.L.J. 1330, Gauhati High Court, Chandra Nath Sarma and another Vs.Mahesh Nath Sarma.
The revision has been opposed by the learned AGA.
At the very outset, I have to say that the above mentioned case law has absolutely no application in the present case. From perusal of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the learned Magistrate I do not find that the charges levelled are groundless. What has been said in the application under section 245(2) Cr.P.C. can not be taken as gospel truth nor looked into because the defence of the accused can not be considered at the stage of section 245 Cr.P.C.
After a careful consideration of the record I am of the view that this revision is devoid of merits and it is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
Order Date :- 10.12.2013
No comments:
Post a Comment