RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2022-6-1
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
June 03,2022
RAMESHWAR
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BRINDABAN DAS AND ORS. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]PYARE LAL BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN MOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PEDDA NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SAT PAUL VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. L MUNISWAMY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAMESH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL [REFERRED TO]
JOOINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. RAM KISHAN ROHTAGT [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION INDIAN FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS VS. LAXMAN KUMAR:SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS RAMALINGESWARA OIL MILL JAVA KRISHNA OIL MILLS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER:STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA:DILIP NATHUMAL [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS CONFEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA VS. JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
P KASILINGAM VS. P S G COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
OMKAR NAMDEO JADHAO VS. SECOND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE BULDANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PRIYA SHARAN MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
MICHAEL MACHADO VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
SURESH ALIAS PAPPU BHUDHARMAL KALANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DILAWAR BALU KURANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
FEROZE N DOTIVALA VS. P M WADHWANI [REFERRED TO]
AMEER TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SHAPOORJI DATA PROCESSING LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD WAKF LABORATORIES VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMR [REFERRED TO]
GURIYA ALIAS TABASSUM TAUQUIR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. SURJI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
PONDS INDIA LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX [REFERRED TO]
SARABJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. RAM NIWAS [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN KUMAR GOGOI VS. ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI [REFERRED TO]
ANJU CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
PALANISAMY GOUNDER VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
HARDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S. MOHAMMED ISPAHANI VS. YOGENDRA CHANDAK [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
VIKAS BUDHWAR,J. -
(1.)Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the revisionists as well as Sri Munne Lal, learned A.G.A.
(2.)This is a revision under Ss. 397/401 CrPC filed by the revisionists herein, wherein challenge has been raised to the order dtd. 2/11/2020 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2019, I.A. No.01/2019, (State of U.P. Versus Khem Chandra @ Phullu and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 249 of 2018, under Ss. 304, 201 IPC, P.S. Panwari, District Mahoba.
(3.)Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a FIR has been lodged on 16/11/2018 by O.P. no.2 / Complainant before P.S. Panwari, Mohaba, being FIR no. 0249 under Sec. 302 IPC, relatable to the commission of the offence on 14/11/2018 against the revisionist, who are two in number with an allegation that the brother of the complainant being Dharmendra Sen son of Lakhan Lal aged about 32 years was working under the revisionists herein, who happened to be the contractor. Certain dispute arose regarding payment of the remuneration, which occasioned in commission of alleged offence, pursuant whereto the dead body of the brother of the complainant was found. Learned counsel for the revisionists has drawn the attention towards Annexure-2 which happens to be post mortem report as well as statement of the complainant, which is at page-62 of the paper-book as well as of Smt. Poonam, wife of the deceased, so as to contend that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the case in question. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that the police report, which is in the shape of final report has been submitted in favour of the revisionists, whereby their names have been expunged. However, according to the revisionist, an application under Sec. 319 CrPC has been filed for summoning of the revisionists, which even infact is nothing but the grossest misuse of the process of the law at the behest of O.P. no.2/ complainant. Learned counsel for the revisionist in the confessional statement of one of the accused, though he was not named in the FIR against whom charge sheet has been submitted, linkage of the revisionists vis-a-vis commission of the crime does not surface at all. According to learned counsel for the revisionists the entire exercise so undertaken is illegal, revisionists have not committed the aforesaid offence, and even otherwise, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Puri as followed in subsequent judgment, has suitably mandated that while exercising the powers under Sec. 319 CrPC, there should be sufficient evidence that should be more than the prima facie in order to summon the so called accused and the said exercise cannot be taken in a routine, mechanical and light manner.
(2.)This is a revision under Ss. 397/401 CrPC filed by the revisionists herein, wherein challenge has been raised to the order dtd. 2/11/2020 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2019, I.A. No.01/2019, (State of U.P. Versus Khem Chandra @ Phullu and others), arising out of Case Crime no. 249 of 2018, under Ss. 304, 201 IPC, P.S. Panwari, District Mahoba.
(3.)Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a FIR has been lodged on 16/11/2018 by O.P. no.2 / Complainant before P.S. Panwari, Mohaba, being FIR no. 0249 under Sec. 302 IPC, relatable to the commission of the offence on 14/11/2018 against the revisionist, who are two in number with an allegation that the brother of the complainant being Dharmendra Sen son of Lakhan Lal aged about 32 years was working under the revisionists herein, who happened to be the contractor. Certain dispute arose regarding payment of the remuneration, which occasioned in commission of alleged offence, pursuant whereto the dead body of the brother of the complainant was found. Learned counsel for the revisionists has drawn the attention towards Annexure-2 which happens to be post mortem report as well as statement of the complainant, which is at page-62 of the paper-book as well as of Smt. Poonam, wife of the deceased, so as to contend that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the case in question. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that the police report, which is in the shape of final report has been submitted in favour of the revisionists, whereby their names have been expunged. However, according to the revisionist, an application under Sec. 319 CrPC has been filed for summoning of the revisionists, which even infact is nothing but the grossest misuse of the process of the law at the behest of O.P. no.2/ complainant. Learned counsel for the revisionist in the confessional statement of one of the accused, though he was not named in the FIR against whom charge sheet has been submitted, linkage of the revisionists vis-a-vis commission of the crime does not surface at all. According to learned counsel for the revisionists the entire exercise so undertaken is illegal, revisionists have not committed the aforesaid offence, and even otherwise, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Puri as followed in subsequent judgment, has suitably mandated that while exercising the powers under Sec. 319 CrPC, there should be sufficient evidence that should be more than the prima facie in order to summon the so called accused and the said exercise cannot be taken in a routine, mechanical and light manner.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.