# Anil Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 500
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-12
- **Bench:** Aniruddha Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45005
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401, Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B &
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section3/4 -
application - rejection - application for
cross-examination of P.W. 1 (deceased
father) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved-order
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory orderrevision against such an order is barred u/s
397(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 10)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rejecting the discharge application, the
revisional court has committed no error in
law, therefore, this Court found no merit
in the submission advanced by learned
counsel for the revisionist.

42. The revision being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A500

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIRUDDHA SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1640 OF 2019

Anil Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401, Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A, 304-B &
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section3/4 -
application - rejection - application for
cross-examination of P.W. 1 (deceased
father) u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved-order
u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory orderrevision against such an order is barred u/s
397(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 8 & 10)

Criminal Revision dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65)
ACC 607 SC

2. Asif Hussain Vs. St. of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC
1036.
3. Munna Devi Vs. St. of Rajasthan &
Anr.Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on
6.11.2001

(Delivered by Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for revisionist and Sri
Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA.
Perused the record.

2. This criminal revision has been
preferred by Anil Kumar against the
impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed
by
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-II, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in
S.T. No. 150 of 2012 arising out of Case
Crime No./F.I.R. No. 531 of 2011 (State
of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), under Sections
498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, Police Station Bazar
Khala Shukla, District C.S. Nagar/Amethi
whereby application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was rejected.

3. In a nutshell, facts of the case are
that F.I.R. was lodged on 19.9.2011
against four accused persons namely Anil
Kumar (husband), Ram Jas, Dileep
Kumar and mother-in-law (wife of Ram
Jas) alleging that the marriage of deceased
Raj Kumari (daughter of complainant)
was solemnized with Anil Kumar 14
months back, they demanded additional
dowry from the deceased for which the
deceased was being tortured by them and
on
17.9.2011
they
killed
her
by
administering poison. After investigation,
charge sheet was submitted for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC
& Section 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Danbahadur (father of deceased) was
examined and cross-examined as P.W.1
by prosecution. Later on, application for
cross-examination of P.W.1 was moved
4 All. Anil Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Anr.
501
under Section 311 Cr.P.C which was
rejected. Hence this revision.

4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist submitted that impugned order
is illegal, against facts and law and
without applying judicial mind. F.I.R. was
lodged after two days of incident without
explaining delay after thought and with
due legal consultation. There is no
evidence against the revisionist.

5. Learned AGA opposed the
contention
of
learned
counsel
for
revisionist and submitted that order
passed by the Court concerned is legal
and revision has no force.

6. From the perusal of record, it
transpires that during trial an application
41-B was moved by the revisionist Anil
Kumar with the prayer to summon P.W.1
Danbahadur for cross-examination again.
On application 41-B objection was filed
stating therein that cross-examination of
P.W. 1 Dan Bahadur was done by Sri
Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for
revisionist in length and for delaying
tactic, this application was moved. After
hearing both the parties, impugned order
was passed and it was held that material
cross-examination was done by learned
counsel for the revisionist and other
things may be proved at the time of
producing evidence and documents in
defence after recording statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., application was
dismissed.

7. From the perusal of record, it also
transpires
that
cross-examination
of
P.W.1 was done by learned counsel for
the revisionist (annexed at page no. 41 to
43) and relevant questions were asked.
Hence, no prejudice is caused to the
revisionist by rejecting the application of
revisionist by impugned order.

8. In the case of Sethuraman Vs.
Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 SC,
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
rejection order under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
is interlocutory order, hence revision is
not maintainable.

9. Same view was taken by
Allahabad High Court in the case of Asif
Hussain Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57)
ACC 1036.

10. The observation made by
Division Bench of Allahabad High Court
in case of Asif Hussain (supra) para 26 is
reproduced as under:

26. From what I have stated above
I find my self in disagreement with my
esteemed brother Hon'ble V.K. Chaturvedi, J.
that the order under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is a
final order and is a revisable one. In my view
it is nothing but an interlocutory order and
revision against such an order is barred
under Section397(2) Cr. P.C.

11. Moreover, in the case of Munna
Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another
Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided
on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the revisional power under the
Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be
exercised in a routine and casual manner.

12. This Court finds no illegality,
impropriety,
material
irregularity
or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order
dated 29.11.2019. The view taken by
Court below is plausible view, hence no
interference is called for by this Court.
The present revision lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The revision is dismissed at
admission stage.

14. Copy of this order be transmitted
to the Court concerned immediately.
----------

(2019)12 ILR A502

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR
JOHARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3025 OF 2016

Smt. Raj Kumari ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Irfan Hasan, Sri Kamlesh Kumar
Tiwari, Sri Kripa Shankar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401 &
Section 125 - challenge to - amount of
maintenance from the date of order not
from the date of application filed and the
amount is meagre- Learned lower court
has
awarded
Rs.2,500/-
the
maintenance amount for the revisionist,
accordingly Rs.83.33/- per day comes to
revisionist
for
her
maintenance.
At
present considering the price hike and
higher cost of living it cannot be
presumed that Rs.83.33/- is sufficient
for a lady to maintain herself. the
amount fixed by the court below is
insufficient as according to present
scenario, the revisionist is entitled to
receive minimum Rs.5,000/- per month
as maintenance from the date of filing of
application. (Para 17 & 18)
B. Criminal Law - Sub-clause 2 of Section
125 Cr.P.C. make the provisions that
allowance shall be payable either from
the date of order or from the date of
application for maintenance. This subclause provides discretionary power to
Magistrate
but
this
power
is
not
absolute.
Discretion
inherits
judicial
discretion; therefore, the law requires
that if the Court passes the order of
maintenance payable not from the date
of application but from the date of order
than in that case the court has to give
reason for that. (Para10)

Order has been passed without judicial
application of mind, the order can be
challenged under revisional jurisdiction. In
present case, the court of Principal Judge
Family Court, Agra has not given any reason
for passing the order to pay amount of
maintenance from the date of order. (Para 11)

Criminal Revision allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. Shail Kumar Devi Vs. Krishan Bhagwan
Pathak @ Kishun B Pathak decision dated
28.7.2008 [2008 LawSuits (SC) 1030].

2. Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr Vs.
Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas & Anr decision
dated 19.11.2014 [2014 LawSuit (SC)916]

3. Chandrapal vs Harpyari And Anr. reported in
1991 CRI. L. J. 2847

4. Basanta Kumari Mohanty Vs. Sarat Kumar
Mohanty reported in 1982 CRI. L.J. 485

(Delivered by Hon'ble Narendra Kumar
Johari, J.)

1. The present revision has been
filed by revisionist- Raj Kumari against
the judgment and order dated 22.7.2016
passed by Principal Judge Family Court,
Agra in Criminal Case No.812 of 2014
"Smt. Raj Kumari Vs. Daya Sankar"
under
Section
125
Cr.P.C.