Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1068 (ALL)

Parvez v. State of U. P.

2016-03-28

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.2.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Moradabad in sessions trial no. 1398 of 2008 (case crime no. 299 of 2008) under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Baniather, District Moradabad. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that cognizance in the matter has been taken on the basis of false facts. There is no evidence against the revisionists to proceed with the trial. The order dated 11.2.2016 passed by the court below on the application under Section 319 CrPC moved by the informant is illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA submitted that earlier the order passed by the court below on the application u/s 319 CrPC rejecting the application was challenged before this Court and this court allowing the said application set-aside the said order passed on the application u/s 319 CrPC and directed the court below to decide the application afresh. In compliance of the said order, the court below after a detailed discussions passed the impugned order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order warranting interference by this Court. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the impugned order as well as the material brought on record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons and the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error. No interference is called for by this Court. The trial court while passing the impugned order has considered the evidence available on record at this stage and finding the complicity of the revisionists in the commission of the offence in question, summoned the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. The disputed questions of fact raised in this revision may be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. The prayer made in the application is refused. The disputed questions of fact raised in this revision may be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. The prayer made in the application is refused. The revision is dismissed at this stage.