# Govind Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 907 of 2019
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/govind-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45970
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397,227 -
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section
306application-rejection-last scene evidencerevisionist and co-accused, both had evil
eyes on deceased's wife-she threatened
them to complaint against them-revisionist
lodged false report against the deceasedaccused challenged the deceased manhood
by saying that they would eventually seek
out his wife and implicate him in frivoulous
cases-Later he found dead-accused died as
a result of drowning-revisionists abetted
him to commit suicide-the submission of
revisionists that no charge was made out
has
no
substance-accused
can
be
discharged
only
when
the
charge
is
groundless.(Para 1 to 14)

B. It is well settled that at the stage fo
charge the court is not required to
consider pros and cons of the case.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence
is not in the domain of the court at that
point of time. What is required from the
court is to sift and weigh the materials for
the limited purpose whether or not a
prima facie case for framing a charge
against the accused has been made
out.(Para 8 to 13)

The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. यहााँ यह कहना आिश्यक है कक
ििथमान प्रकरण केिल अंिररम भरण पोषण
भत्ते के तनिेि से संबंचधि है, गुण िोष पर
अंतिम तनणथय होना अभी िेष है। अिः इस थिर
पर यह तनधाथररि करना है कक अंिररम भरण
पोषण भत्ते के तनिेि िेिे समय सक्षम न्यायालय
को क्या आधार ध्यान में रिने िादहए। यह
वििादिि है कक पति का अपनी पत्नी ि संिान
का उचिि भरण पोषण करना, उसका कानूनी,
नैतिक, सामास्जक और िैिादहक किथव्य है,
स्जसका तनिथहन ििथमान प्रकरण में नहीं ककया
जा रहा है। अंिररम भरण पोषण का तनिेि िेिे
समय न्यायालय को प्रिम रष्टव्य संिुष्ट होना है
कक पति अपनी पत्नी ि संिान का भरण पोषण
करने की उपेक्षा कर रहा है। ििथमान प्रकरण में
यह अवििादिि है कक पुनरीक्षणकिाथ अपनी
पत्नी ि बेटी की जो मायके में रह रही है, उनके
भरण पोषण की उपेक्षा कर रहा है। आय के
तनधाथरण का तनणथय अभी नहीं ललया जा सकिा
है क्योंकक यह एक वििादिि वििाधक है जो
पक्षों के साक्ष्य आने के बाि ही गुण िोष पर
तनधाथररि ककया जा सकिा है। अिः विपक्षी 2 ि
3 पुनरीक्षणकिाथ से अंिररम भरण पोषण भत्ते
के अचधकारी है और ऐसा तनिेि िे कर अिर
न्यायालय ने कोई िैधातनक त्रुदट नहीं करी है।

20. अिर न्यायालय द्िारा अंिररम भत्ते
की कुल रालि मात्र ₹ 3500 मालसक है, जो
ििथमान समय में साधारण जीिनयापन की दृस्ष्ट
से भी बहुि कम है। अिः अंिररम भरण पोषण
भत्ते के तनिेि के ललये प्रिम रष्टव्य यह मानना
उचिि है कक पुनरीक्षणकिाथ अपनी पत्नी ि
संिान का भरण पोषण करने की उपेक्षा कर
रहा है, अिः िो अंिररम भरण पोषण भत्ते के
अचधकारी हैं। केिल इस कारण से कक
पुनरीक्षणकिाथ द्िारा िाम्पत्य अचधकारों की
प्रत्याथिापन का िाि िाखिल ककया गया है ििा
स्जस पर गुण िोष पर वििार करना अभी िेष
है, यह प्रकरण धारा 125(5) िं0प्र0सं0 के
अन्िगथि आ जायेगा और अपेक्षक्षि आिेि विचध
विरुद्ध हो जायेगा, ऐसा तनिेिन विचध के ककसी
भी मापिंड से बलहीन है, अिः पूणथ रुप से
अथिीकार ककया जािा है। पुनरीक्षणकिाथ की
ओर से और कोई तनिेिन नहीं ककया गया है।

तनष्कषथ-

21. उपरोक्ि विश्लेषण का तनष्कषथ है कक
अिर न्यायालय ने प्रकरण के िथ्य ि
पररस्थितियों में जो अंिररम भरण पोषण भत्ते का
तनिेि दिया है, िो न्यायसंगि है ििा
पुनरीक्षणकिाथ ििथमान प्रकरण में ऐसा कोई भी
िथ्यात्मक या विचधक त्रुदट प्रिलिथि करने में
विर्ल रहा, स्जससे यह प्रिीि हो कक उसके
साि घोर अन्याय हुआ हो ििा अिर न्यायालय
ने न्यातयक वििेक का मनमाने या विकार रुप से
प्रयोग ककया हो स्जससे पुनरीक्षण की िस्क्ियों
का उपयोग करने का कोई मामला बनिा हो।
ििानुसार उपरोक्ि वििाधक तनधाथररि ककया
जािा है और ििथमान पुनरीक्षण याचिका
बलहीन होने के कारण तनरथि की जािी है।
----------

(2021)01ILR A156
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 907 of 2019

Govind ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri A.K. Mishra, Sri Sati Shanker Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
1 All. Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
157
A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 401/397,227 -
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Section
306application-rejection-last scene evidencerevisionist and co-accused, both had evil
eyes on deceased's wife-she threatened
them to complaint against them-revisionist
lodged false report against the deceasedaccused challenged the deceased manhood
by saying that they would eventually seek
out his wife and implicate him in frivoulous
cases-Later he found dead-accused died as
a result of drowning-revisionists abetted
him to commit suicide-the submission of
revisionists that no charge was made out
has
no
substance-accused
can
be
discharged
only
when
the
charge
is
groundless.(Para 1 to 14)

B. It is well settled that at the stage fo
charge the court is not required to
consider pros and cons of the case.
Marshalling and appreciation of evidence
is not in the domain of the court at that
point of time. What is required from the
court is to sift and weigh the materials for
the limited purpose whether or not a
prima facie case for framing a charge
against the accused has been made
out.(Para 8 to 13)

The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Rajesh Vs St. of Har., SLP(Cri.) No. 8667 of
2016 SC

2. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs St. of A.P.,(2019) 1
SCC 750

3. St. of Ori. Vs Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1
SCC 568

4. P. Vijayan Vs St. of Ker. & ors. (2010) 2 SCC
1398

5. Soma Chakravarty Vs St. (2007) AIR SC 2149

6. Sajjan Kumar Vs CBI, JT (2010) 10 SC 413

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. This criminal revision has been filed
by the revisionist against the order dated
27.11.2018 passed by IXth Addl. Sessions
Judge, Mathura as well as consequential
order dated 29.11.2018 by which learned trial
judge rejected the discharge application of the
revisionist bearing paper no. 16 Kha dated
7.9.2018 filed under section 227 Cr.P.C. vide
order
dated
27.11.2018
and
without
providing
any
breathing
time
to
the
revisionist framed the charges against him on
29.11.2018 in S.T. No. 66 of 2018 (State Vs.
Govind Soni and Others) under section 306
I.P.C. Police Station Mahavan, District
Mathura arising out of Case Crime No. 182
of 2015 pending in the court of IXth Addl.
Sessions Judge, Mathura.

2. Brief facts of this case as per First
Information Report is that the first
informant's
nephew
namely,
Nirmal
Kumar, was a teacher at Purva Madhyamik
School, Kinarayee and living with his
family at Ashok Vihar Colony, Mathura.
Whereas the revisionist, Govind Soni, who
happened to be deceased's brother-in-law
and co-accused, Brijesh Dixit, both have
evil
eyes
on
deceased's
wife,
Smt.
Bhagwati, and also coerced her to see with
their wrong intention. It is asserted that
when
Bhagwati
threatened
them
to
complaint against them, the revisionist
lodged a false report at Police Station Sadar
Bazar. And thereafter, the revisionist and
co-accused,
Brijesh
Dixit
have
been
continuously harassing and teasing the
deceased, Nirmal Kumar, as they both
knew that deceased, Nirmal Kumar, is a
patient of high blood pressure and they also
said that they were eventually seek out his
wife and will keep on him impleading in
frivolous cases. When deceased tried to
confront
the
accused
persons
they
challenge his manhood and said that he
should kill himself or commit suicide. On
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12.6.2015, one Sujeet Kumar saw the
revisionist and co-accused chatting with
Nirmal Kumar. Later on Sujeet Kumar
received
a
whatsapp
message
about
recovery of a dead body, at Gokul Dam and
which is later on identified as dead body of
deceased, Nirmal Kumar. Then Sujeet
Kumar informed to the first informant
(uncle of deceased) and the first informant
identified the dead body of of Nirmal
Kumar and lodged a report on same day at
9.45 P.M. against the revisionist and coaccused, Brijesh Dixit. Post mortem of the
dead body of deceased was conducted and
as per postmortem report of deceased, the
deceased has died due to asphyxia as a
result of drowning.

3. After lodging the First Information
Report, the Investigating Officer conducted
the Panchayatnama on 13.6.2015. During
investigation
on
19.6.2015,
the
investigating officer has recorded statement
of Sukhbir and Jay Prakash. These
independent witnesses have stated in their
statements that deceased was mentally
disturbed person and his treatment was
going on in Agra. They further stated that
deceased has left the place of Jay Prakash,
who is the brother of deceased, and went
somewhere in the morning and when he did
not
return,
he
tried
to
trace
him.
Investigating Officer of this case also
recorded the statement of deceased's wife
namely, Bhagwati, in which she has clearly
stated that revisionist has evil eye on her
and he mentally tortured her and she further
stated
that
revisionist
instigated
her
husband / deceased to commit suicide. It is
further stated that only for torturing and
harassing her husband / deceased, the
revisionist has lodged a false N.C.R. No. 42
of 2015 under sections 323, 504 I.P.C.
against the deceased. After conducting the
investigation,
the
investigating
officer
submitted
chargesheet
against
the
revisionist, Govind Soni, and Brijesh under
section 306 I.P.C. on 23.8.2015.

4. On the aforesaid chargesheet, the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of
the
offence
over
the
chargesheet.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions where it is registered as
Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2018 (State Vs.
Govind Soni and Another) under section
306 I.P.C.

5. After committal of the case, on
7.9.2018 the revisionist filed a discharge
application under section 227 Cr.P.C. On
7.9.2018 on the ground that there was no
evidence against him collected by the
investigating officer during the course of
investigation, which constitutes the offence
under section 306 I.P.C. against the
revisionist. Thereafter, learned trial court
rejected the discharge application of the
revisionist after hearing both the parties
and fixed a date for framing of charge.
Thereafter, on 19.11.2018, learned Sessions
Court framed charge against both the
accused under section 306 I.P.C. Being
aggrieved with the said order of Sessions
Court, this criminal revision has been filed
by the revisionist.

6. Revisionist has challenged the
order dated 27.11.2018 on the following
grounds. Learned trial court has completely
failed to record any reason that prima facie
offence is made out or not against the
revisionist and without applying its judicial
mind,
erroneously
rejected
discharge
application of the revisionist. Solely on
flimsy ground only evidence collected
during investigation by the I.O. against the
accused / applicant is that on 15.6.2015,
nephew of the first informant namely,
Sujeet Kumar, had simply seen the
1 All. Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
159
revisionist, Govind Soni, and co-accused,
Brijesh Dixit, chatting with the deceased.
Thus,
only
circumstances
last
seen
evidence is available but there is absolutely
no evidence to show that accused has
incited the deceased to commit suicide or
make his life so miserable that there was no
option left to deceased except to end his
life. Simply alleged that accused / applicant
has
evil
eye
and
questioned
upon
deceased's manhood and induced him to
kill himself. As no requisite mensrea to add
the commission of offence of abatement of
suicide. It is also further submitted that
postmortem report of deceased clearly
reveals that cause of death of deceased is
aphexia, as a result of drowning, which
shows that deceased died either accidental
or suicidal death or it could be possible by
murder or homicide. There is no successive
evidence that deceased has committed
suicide. It is also submitted that deceased
was a patient of depression for long time
and his treatment was going on in different
hospitals. It is quite possible that deceased
committed suicide due to his pathetic
condition. Further submitted that there is no
question arose that deceased commits
suicide due to abatement by the revisionist
and learned trial court without appreciating
the evidence available on record, wrongly
rejected the discharge application of the
revisionist.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has relied upon the following
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

i. Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana,
SLP (Crl.) No. 8667 of 2016, SC.

ii. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, 201 (1) SCC 750

7. Learned A.G.A. supported the
order of learned trial court and stated that
impugned order is legal and factually
correct and there is no occasion for this
court
to
interfere
under
revisional
jurisdiction.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and the learned A.G.A. and also
perused the record.

9. A larger Bench of the Apex Court
in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra
Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, has settled
the legal position in regard to the relevancy
of defence evidence at the stage of charge.
In that case, the Apex Court has held as
follows:

"16. All the decisions, when they
hold that there can only be limited
evaluation of materials and documents on
record and sifting of evidence to prima
facie find out whether sufficient ground
exists or not for the purpose of proceeding
further with the trial, have so held with
reference to materials and documents
produced by the prosecution and not the
accused. The decisions proceed on the
basis of settled legal position that the
material as produced by the prosecution
alone is to be considered and not the one
produced by the accused. The latter aspect
relating to the accused though has not been
specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the
decisions. It seems to have not been
specifically so stated as it was taken to be
well settled proposition. This aspect,
however, has been adverted to in State
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and
Another v. P. Suryaprakasam [1999 SCC
(Crl.) 373] where considering the scope of
Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it was
held that at the time of framing of charge,
what the trial court is required to, and can
consider are only the police report referred
to under Section 173 of the Code and the
documents sent with it. The only right the
accused has at that stage is of being heard
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
nothing
beyond
that
(emphasis
supplied)......

18. ................ It only means
hearing the submissions of the accused on
the record of the case as filed by the
prosecution
and
documents
submitted
therewith
and
nothing
more.
The
expression 'hearing the submissions of the
accused' cannot mean opportunity to file
material to be granted to the accused and
thereby changing the settled law. At the
state of framing of charge hearing the
submissions of the accused has to be
confined to the material produced by the
police."

24. As a result of aforesaid
discussion, in our view, clearly the law is
that at the time of framing charge or taking
cognizance the accused has no right to
produce any material. Satish Mehra's case
holding that the trial court has powers to
consider even materials which accused may
produce at the stage of section 227 of the
Code has not been correctly decided."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment passed in the matter of "P.
Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
reported in 2010 (2) SCC 1398 " held that
:-

"10.
Before
considering
the
merits of the claim of both the parties, it is
useful to refer Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as
under:-

"227.
Discharge.-
If,
upon
consideration of the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith, and
after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf,
the Judge considers that there is not
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing."

If two views are possible and one
of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal. Further, the words "not
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused" clearly show that the Judge is
not a mere post office to frame the charge
at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the
case in order to determine whether a case
for trial has been made out by the
prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not
necessary for the court to enter into the
pros and cons of the matter or into a
weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of
the court, after the trial starts.

11. At the stage of Section 227,
the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. In other words, the sufficiency
of ground would take within its fold the
nature of the evidence recorded by the
police or the documents produced before
the court which ex facie disclose that there
are suspicious circumstances against the
accused so as to frame a charge against
him.

(12) The scope of Section 227 of
the Code was considered by this Court in
the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh
Singh, wherein this Court observed as
follows:-

"4. ... Strong suspicion against
the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take the place
of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the
trial. But at the initial stage if there is a
strong suspicion which leads the Court to
think that there is ground for presuming
that the accused has committed an offence
1 All. Govind Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
161
then it is not open to the court to say that
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The presumption of
the guilt of the accused which is to be
drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense
of the law governing the trial of criminal
cases in France where the accused is
presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is
proved. But it is only for the purpose of
deciding prima facie whether the Court
should proceed with the trial or not. If the
evidence which the prosecutor proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the accused
even if fully accepted before it is
challenged
in
cross-examination
or
rebutted by the defence evidence, if any,
cannot show that the accused committed
the offence, then there will be no sufficient
ground for proceeding with the trial"

This Court has thus held that
whereas strong suspicion may not take the
place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it
may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the
trial Judge in order to frame a charge
against the accused.

11. In a recent decision, in Soma
Chakravarty vs. State, AIR 2007 SC 2149
this Court has held that :-

"The settled legal position is that
if on the basis of material on record the
court could form an opinion that the
accused might have committed offence it
can
frame
the
charge,
though
for
conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence. At the
time of framing of the charges the
probative value of the material on record
cannot be gone into, and the material
brought on record by the prosecution has
to be accepted as true.... Before framing a
charge the court must apply its judicial
mind on the material placed on record and
must be satisfied that the commission of
offence by the accused was possible.
Whether, in fact, the accused committed the
offence, can only be decided in the trial.
(Para 11)

Charge may although be directed
to be framed when there exists a strong
suspicion but it is also trite that the Court
must come to a prima facie finding that
there
exist
some
materials
therefor.
Suspicion alone, without anything more,
cannot form the basis therefor or held to be
sufficient for framing charge."

12. Apart from the aforesaid cases, in
the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, JT 2010(10) SC
413, the Apex Court has formulated the
following guidelines with regard to the
question as to how a matter for framing a
charge against the accused is to be dealt
with:

"(i) The Judge while considering
the question of framing the charges under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out.
The test to determine prima facie case
would depend upon the facts of each case.

ii) Where the materials placed
before the Court disclose grave suspicion
against the accused which has not been
properly explained, the Court will be fully
justified
in
framing
a
charge
and
proceeding with the trial.

iii) The Court cannot act merely
as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the
prosecution but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
before the Court, any basic infirmities etc.
However, at this stage, there cannot be a
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.

iv) If on the basis of the material
on record, the Court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused has committed the offence.

v) At the time of framing of the
charges, the probative value of the material
on record cannot be gone into but before
framing a charge the Court must apply its
judicial mind on the material placed on
record and must be satisfied that the
commission of offence by the accused was
possible.

vi) At the stage of Sections 227
and 228, the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with
a view to find out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value
discloses the existence of all the ingredients
constituting the alleged offence. For this
limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage
to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to
common sense or the broad probabilities of
the case.

vii) If two views are possible and
one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion, the
trial Judge will be empowered to discharge
the accused and at this stage, he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction
or acquittal."

13. The aforesaid decisions have
almost settled the legal position that at
the stage of charge the court is not
required to consider pros and cons of the
case and to hold an enquiry to find out
truth. Marshaling and appreciation of
evidence is not in the domain of the court
at that point of time. What is required
from the court is to sift and weigh the
materials for the limited purpose of
finding out whether or not a prima facie
case for framing a charge against the
accused has been made out. Even in a
case of grave or strong suspicion charge
can be framed. The court has to consider
broad probabilities of the case, total
effect of the evidence and the documents
produced including basic infirmities, if
any. If on the basis of the material on
record, the court could form an opinion
that the accused might have committed
offence, it can frame the charge, but the
court should not weigh the evidence as if
it were holding trial. Accused can be
discharged only when the charge is
groundless. In my opinion, the learned
Sessions Judge has taken into account all
the relevant materials and passed the
impugned order keeping in view the
parameters laid down by the Apex Court
in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the
submission of the counsel for the
revisionist that no charge was made out
has no substance.

14. I shall now apply the principles
enunciated above in the present case in
order to find out whether or not the court
below was justified in dismissing the
discharge application filed under Section
227 Cr.P.C.

15. For the reasons discussed above,
the revision has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if
any, is vacated.

16. A copy of this order be
communicated to the lower court for
necessary compliance.
----------
1 All. Manoj Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
(2021)01ILR A163
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1962 of 2020

Manoj Kumar Patel ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Amarnath Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, Sri
Yogendra Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section
401/397,

&
Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 307,352,
427, 326-A-maintainability of -trial court
refused
to
accept/admit
required
documents
on
record
u/s
311victim/revisionist
challenged
the
said
order which was interlocutory-revision
u/s 397(1) is maintainable only against
those
orders
which
termintes
the
proceeding of the main case once for allother orders passed during the pendency
of trial are interlocutory orders-revision
against interlocutory order are barred u/s
397(2) Cr.P.C.-instant revision is preferred
against the order, which is interlocutory in
nature-the same is not maintainable in the
eyes of law.(Para 1 to 31)

B. The decision of application u/s 311
Cr.P.C. do not decide anything finally or
results into the culminating the main
proceeding of the case. Order impugned
can not be construed as an order which is
a
matter
of
movement
or
as
an
intermediate or quasi final order as
discussed in the case of Amarnath and
Madhu Limay, so as to maintain the
revision against the order. (Para 10 to 30)
The revision is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Sethuraman Vs Rajamanickam, (2009) 5 SCC
153

2. Goli Satyanarayan Reddy Vs G. Mahesh &
anr.(Crl. R.C. No. 175/2018)

3. Amar Nath Vs St. of Har. (1977) AIR SC 2185

4. Madhu Limaye Vs St. of Mah.(1977) 4 SCC
551

5. Prabhu Chavala Vs St. of Raj.(2016) 16 SCC
30

6. Kuppuswami Rao Vs King Kania (1949) AIR
F.C.I.

7. Mohanlal Maganlal Thakar Vs St. of Guj.
(1968) AIR SC 733

8. Parmeshwari Devi Vs St. (1977) 1 SCC 169

9. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &
anr. Vs CBI (2018) 16 SCC 299: (2020) 1 SCC
Cri 686: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 Pg. 316

10. Asif Hussain Vs St. of U.P. (2007) 57 ACC
1036

11. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI, (2017) 14 SCC
809

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amarnath, learned
counsel for the Revisionist, Sri Yogendra
Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of
Shri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel
for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5, Sri Nitin
Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State on
admission and perused the record on board.

2. Instant Revision has been preferred
by Manoj Kumar Patel (victim) challenging
the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge/