# Deepak Alias Pappu Yadav v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 46
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-01-08
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5458 of 2009
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-alias-pappu-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-41502
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Application
to summon the record of cross case U/S
307, 120-B, 167, 218, 220, 342, 147,
148, 149, 323,504 IPC- Rejection by
Trial Court- held proper order passed by
magistrate u/s 156(3) to register and
investigate the case- Stayed by High
Court- neither Charge sheet, nor FIR nor
Summoning
order
in
existence
No
existence of Cross Case Rejection- held
proper.

Held: Para 10

Principles
laid
down
in
all
these
decisions are that whenever cross case is
pending, both cases should be tried
together. No doubt, it is settled principle
of law. I am in full agreement that cross
case should be tried together. But in the
instant case taking into consideration
that only an order was passed by
Magistrate to register and investigate
the matter, which has been stayed by
this Court as far back as in year 2006,
there is no cross case in existence at
present.
Therefore,
application
has
rightly
been
rejected
by
Additional
Sessions Judge. No good ground for
interference is made out. The instant
revision lacks merits and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Case Law Discussed-
1994(23) AIR page 296, 2006 INDLAW SC
1253, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 783, 2001(42) ACC
(SC)479, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 149, 2003 (46)
ACC(SC) 881, 2008 (63) ACC 71.

## Text

46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
the horoscope. For this the petitioner will
have to lead evidence in a suit to be filed
before the court of competent civil
jurisdiction.
The
petitioner
is
educationally qualified and was working
as a Collection Amin. He has passed his
matriculation in 1969 where his date of
birth recorded is 31.1.50. The date of birth
as reflected in the horoscope is 31.12.52.

3. In a similar situation, the Supreme
Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.
Mohan Lal Sharma reported in 2002(7)
SCC Page 719 has rejected such a
contention founded on a horoscope as
against a matriculation certificate.

4. This writ petition therefore cannot
be entertained.

5. It is accordingly dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5458 of 2009

Deepak Alias Pappu Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure-Application
to summon the record of cross case U/S
307, 120-B, 167, 218, 220, 342, 147,
148, 149, 323,504 IPC- Rejection by
Trial Court- held proper order passed by
magistrate u/s 156(3) to register and
investigate the case- Stayed by High
Court- neither Charge sheet, nor FIR nor
Summoning
order
in
existence
No
existence of Cross Case Rejection- held
proper.

Held: Para 10

Principles
laid
down
in
all
these
decisions are that whenever cross case is
pending, both cases should be tried
together. No doubt, it is settled principle
of law. I am in full agreement that cross
case should be tried together. But in the
instant case taking into consideration
that only an order was passed by
Magistrate to register and investigate
the matter, which has been stayed by
this Court as far back as in year 2006,
there is no cross case in existence at
present.
Therefore,
application
has
rightly
been
rejected
by
Additional
Sessions Judge. No good ground for
interference is made out. The instant
revision lacks merits and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Case Law Discussed-
1994(23) AIR page 296, 2006 INDLAW SC
1253, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 783, 2001(42) ACC
(SC)479, 2000(40) ACC (SC) 149, 2003 (46)
ACC(SC) 881, 2008 (63) ACC 71.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The instant revision is preferred
against order dated 28.10.2009 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. 3rd,
Jaunpur, in Session Trial No.290 of 2005
arising out of case crime no.302 of 2005
under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station
Kotwali Jaunpur, District Jaunpur.

3. Grievance of revisionist is that an
application was moved before Additional
Sessions Judge with a prayer to summon
1 All] Deepak @ Pappu Yadav V. State of U.P. and another
47
record of cross case under Sections 307,
120-B, 167, 218, 220, 342, 147, 148, 149,
323, 504 I.P.C., which is pending and
both cases may be tried together.

4. Facts are somewhat different.
Revisionist filed an application under
Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
Learned
Magistrate passed an order on 4.2.2006
directing to register and investigate the
matter against some police officials. The
said order was challenged before this
Court in criminal revision no.1708 of
2006, which is still pending. An interim
order staying operation of the order dated
4.2.2006 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was passed.

5. It is admitted that consequent to
the said order, no first information report
has been registered so far. Application for
summoning record of cross case was
rejected by Additional Sessions Judge,
which is impugned in the instant revision.

6. I have perused the impugned
order
dated
28.10.2009
whereby
application 54-Kha preferred on behalf of
revisionist was rejected with a finding that
cross case is not in existence either at any
police station or in any other court of law.

7. The counsel for revisionist has
tried to stress that since there is stay order
granted by this Court in criminal revision
no.1708 of 2009 then it will be presumed
that order by virtue of which a direction
was given to register and investigate
criminal
case
is
not
in
existence.
Therefore,
learned
Magistrate
has
committed illegality in holding otherwise.
He has placed reliance on two decisions
one is Dr. G.C. Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.
and another 1994 (23) A.I.R. page 296.
On the basis of this decision, it is argued
that effect of stay order means that order
stayed cannot be given effect to, it does
not mean that authority cannot cancel or
rescind, recall or withdraw that order.
Another decision is in the case of
Ravikant S Patil Vs. Sarvabhouma S.
Bagali 2006 INDLAW SC 1253, which
relates to stay of conviction. It was held
that order granting stay of conviction is
not rule but is an exception to be resorted
to in rare cases depending upon facts of
the case but where conviction itself is
stayed, effect is that conviction will not be
operative from the date of stay.

8. I do not think that these decisions
are of any help to revisionist. Both these
decisions only elucidate on the effect of a
stay order. Assuming that there is an order
passed by this Court in criminal revision
no.1708 of 2006 staying order of the
Magistrate to register criminal case, it
means that no criminal case is registered
since stay order is operative. Consequent
result is that no criminal case is in
existence either because there is an
interim order operative staying order of
the
Magistrate
to
lodge
FIR
or
alternatively matter was probed by the
Magistrate and only an order was passed
for registering criminal case. In either
circumstance, FIR is not in existence.
Therefore, there is no question of any
cross case pending before any court. In
absence of FIR there is no investigation,
no charge sheet, no summoning order and
consequently no trial is pending in any
court.
Therefore,
contention
of
the
counsel for revisionist that cross case
should be tried together is a hypothetical
situation. In the event, stay is vacated,
criminal revision no.1708 of 2006 is
dismissed then FIR can be lodged and
entire process of law will take its course.
There being nothing of this kind,
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
argument of the counsel for revisionist is
without any substance.

9. Counsel for revisionist has also
placed reliance on a number of decisions
of the Apex Court as well as this Court;
Kulwant Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and
others 2000 (40) ACC (SC) 783, Sudhir
and others Vs. State of M.P. 2001 (42)
ACC (SC) 479, Balbir Vs. State of
Haryana and another 2000 (40) ACC (SC)
149, State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (dead)
and others 2003 (46) ACC (SC) 881 and
Jugdish
and
others
Vs.
Additional
Sessions Judge/FTC, Siddarth Nagar and
another 2008 (63) ACC 71.

10. Principles laid down in all these
decisions are that whenever cross case is
pending, both cases should be tried
together. No doubt, it is settled principle
of law. I am in full agreement that cross
case should be tried together. But in the
instant case taking into consideration that
only an order was passed by Magistrate to
register and investigate the matter, which
has been stayed by this Court as far back
as in year 2006, there is no cross case in
existence
at
present.
Therefore,
application has rightly been rejected by
Additional Sessions Judge. No good
ground for interference is made out. The
instant revision lacks merits and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD THE: 27.01.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGRAWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE S.C. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6449 of 2009

Shyam Sunder Gupta
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K.Mishra,
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Act-226-Quashing
of FIR-offence under Section 498-A,323,
506 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act- on
ground in matrimonial dispute they have
settled a their differences- duly verified
by mediation centre- no useful purpose
shall be in continuing the criminal
proceeding accordingly FIR quashed.

Held: Para-11

Considering the facts that the subject
matter
of
this
FIR,
which
is
a
matrimonial dispute and is of a pure
personal
nature,
is
now
stands
voluntary, mutually and amicably settled
between the parties vide compromise
deed filed through Mediation Centre of
this Court, we see no purpose in
continuing
the
criminal
proceedings
arising out of FIR in question. The
dispute between the parties is of a
purely
personal
nature.
After
compromise
between
the
parties,
keeping
the
matter
alive
with
no
possibility of a result in favour of the
prosecution is a luxury for the courts.
Case law discussed:
(2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Cri.) 464.