Allahabad High Court
Ram Autar Lath vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 19 February, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 924 of 2016 Revisionist :- Ram Autar Lath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Smt. Nalini Prakash Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Gyanendra Pathak Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging order dated 18.07.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich in Misc. Case No.316/12/2015 (Ram Autar Lath vs. Sanjay Singh and Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.201 of 2015, under Section 395 IPC, P.S. Risiya, District Bahraich.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the entire facts of the case and the contentions made by the revisionist have also not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and has been passed without following the procedure as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protest application filed by the revisionist was rejected by the Court below without giving any cogent reason.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 have submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has been passed after considering the contentions made in the protest application. The protest application was filed merely on the ground that the final report was submitted by the police without proper investigation and very quickly.
Learned AGA has submitted that it is mandate of Section 173 Cr.P.C., that the police may investigate the matter quickly and without any unnecessary delay, and file report as soon as possible.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon perusal of the record, I find that the reasons given by the Court below while deciding the protest application is sufficient and there is no illegality in the impugned order. In the revisional jurisdiction, this Court has limited scope to examine the illegality or any factual error occurred in the impugned order. I do not find any of them in the aforesaid order, therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction.
In view of the above, the instant revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.2.2020 nishant/-