Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2923 (ALL)

Meeta Khattri @ Meeta Sahgal v. State of U. P.

2015-09-16

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 07.04.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur as well as the order dated 13.02.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was delay in filing the revision before the Session Judge because the petitioner is residing 2000 KM away from district Sitapur. It has also been submitted that because the previous revision bearing Criminal Revision Defective No.252 of 2014 was filed before this Court, therefore, there was delay in filing the revision before the court below. It has also been submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner to adduce the evidence because some Bank Officers are also involved in the said fraud. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has defended the impugned orders. 5. As far as the order dated 13.02.2014 is concerned, the previous revision bearing Criminal Revision Defective No.252 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order but the petitioner had withdrawn the said revision with liberty to file the revision before the Session Judge. The said order was passed by this Court on 10.06.2014 and the petitioner was required to file the revision before the court below within time but the said revision has been filed on 21.11.2014. The medical ground was taken that she was ill till 30.09.2014, therefore, she could not file revision. There were no medical documents stating that she was ill after 30.09.2014 also, but the revision was filed on 21.11.2014. It was not explained. 6. As far as the reservation since 30.09.2014 to 21.11.2014 is concerned, there is a policy of Railways to issue Tatkal Tickets in case of reservation and it cannot be believed that since 30.09.2014 till 21.11.2014, the petitioner could not get the reservation in Tatkal quota also. 7. As far as the order dated 13.02.2014 is concerned, as the previous revision challenging the said order has also been dismissed, therefore, the said order cannot be challenged again before this Court. 8. Learned Sessions Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order. As far as the order dated 13.02.2014 is concerned, as the previous revision challenging the said order has also been dismissed, therefore, the said order cannot be challenged again before this Court. 8. Learned Sessions Judge has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and I do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned order. The petition lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.