# Lokesh & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 402
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-21
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lokesh-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44764
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 319 - Powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
only where strong and cogent evidence are
found - much stronger evidence - of such
level that if the same was left unrebutted, it
would result in conviction of the said person
as an accused.

For summoning a person as accused under
section 319 Cr.P.C. if the court feels satisfied
from the evidence which has come on record
that there was much stronger evidence which
3 All. Lokesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
403
showed not merely probability of complicity of
the
said
person
of
being
involved
in
commission of offence rather the evidence
was found of such level that if the same was
left unrebutted, it would result in conviction of
the said person as an accused then accused
shall be summoned - Held - Victim has
consistently given her statements in support of
the prosecution case narrated by her in FIR.
The case which she established in FIR was
corroborated by her in statements under
sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. with slight
variation and also in her statement given
before the trial court, in which she has also
been cross-examined at length. (Para 13)

Criminal revision dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:-

Dev Wati Vs St. of Haryana (2019) 4 SCC 3219

## Text

402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mandeep Singh got education from classI to class-V in some school. On the
contrary, it was found that leaving
certificate which was produced before the
Juvenile Justice Board shows that he got
admission in U.K.G on 04.07.2001 and he
passed class-II on 31.03.2003. Therefore,
it was necessary to give educational
record of Mandeep Singh showing that he
passed the examination of class III, IV, V
from some institution, but no such school
record was given. The lower courts below
found it highly suspicious that when
Mandeep Singh passed class-II in year
2003 how he could get admission in
class-VI on 05.07.2004 as there is
difference of at least three years for
getting admission in class-VI. In a natural
way, if a person has passed class-II on
31.03.2003 he can get admission in classVI only after 31.03.2006. On this basis
the learned courts below found the date of
birth (01.07.1995) shown in the leaving
certificate of National Public School,
Bilaspur
to
be
highly
suspicious
particularly when all these points have
been
elaborately
discussed
in
the
aforesaid judgement of the High Court. In
the aforesaid order of the High Court, this
fact also finds mention that in respect of
admission in Guru Nanak Inter College,
the affidavit was filed narrating that
Mandeep Singh has passed class-V in the
year 2003-04 but despite the order of this
Court no evidence was led to show in
which school Mandeep Singh studied
from class-I to class-V nor any such
certificate to that effect was filed.

19. In view of the above anomaly
and contradictions in school record of
Mandeep, the JJ Board, finding no other
option and in view of the aforementioned
direction of this court, determined the age
on the basis of the medical evidence and the
order so passed was further affirmed by
impugned judgement in appeal. It is
pertinent to make a mention that the courts
do not reject the claim of juvenility in a
routine way unless there exists good cause. I
do not find any material irregularity or
illegality or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order and judgement of the courts
below. The revision has got no force and is
liable to be dismissed.

20. The revision is therefore dismissed.
Stay order if any shall stand vacated.
----------

(2019)11ILR A402

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1896 OF 2019

Lokesh & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 319 - Powers
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised
only where strong and cogent evidence are
found - much stronger evidence - of such
level that if the same was left unrebutted, it
would result in conviction of the said person
as an accused.

For summoning a person as accused under
section 319 Cr.P.C. if the court feels satisfied
from the evidence which has come on record
that there was much stronger evidence which
3 All. Lokesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
403
showed not merely probability of complicity of
the
said
person
of
being
involved
in
commission of offence rather the evidence
was found of such level that if the same was
left unrebutted, it would result in conviction of
the said person as an accused then accused
shall be summoned - Held - Victim has
consistently given her statements in support of
the prosecution case narrated by her in FIR.
The case which she established in FIR was
corroborated by her in statements under
sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. with slight
variation and also in her statement given
before the trial court, in which she has also
been cross-examined at length. (Para 13)

Criminal revision dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases Cited:-

Dev Wati Vs St. of Haryana (2019) 4 SCC 3219

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri
Attrey Dut Mishra, learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State and perused the
record.

2. The instant criminal revision has
been filed against the summoning order
dated 17.04.2019 passed by Additional
Session Judge, Fast Tract, Court No.1,
Mathura in Session trial No.244 of 2017
under section 366, 376 IPC (State vs.
Satish @ Satto) arising out of Case Crime
No.392 of 2016 under section 376D, 363,
366, 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Farah, District Mathura.

3.

Before
appreciating
the
arguments of the learned counsel for the
revisionists as well as the learned counsel
for
opposite
parties,
it
would
be
appropriate to give the facts of this case in
brief, which are as follows:

4. The opposite party no. 2 Mamta
lodged an FIR on 15.10.2016 at 10.00
A.M. through an application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. stating therein that one Satish @
Satto was her neighbour who was
harassing her. On 24.4.2016 at 5.00 P.M.
when husband of opposite party no. 2 had
gone to Agra, Satish @ Satto, Lokesh,
revisionist no. 1, Manoj, revisionist no.2,
Vasu Dev @ Vaso revisionist no. 3
forcibly abducted her at the point of
country made pistol. All these accused
had also stolen Rs.10,000/- and jewellery
which were kept in her house. All these
accused had given narcotic substance to
her and committed gang rape upon her.
When she raised alarm then they fled
from there giving threat that they would
kill her husband. These accused had also
taken few indecent photographs of her
and have also obtained her signatures on
blank papers. They had told her not to
disclose about this to anyone and not to
take any action, failing which her
indecent photographs would be placed on
internet. On 26.8.2016 at 4.00 A.M. they
came to the village alongwith opposite
party no. 2, then opposite party no. 2
disclosed entire facts to her husband. On
the same day her husband Naresh went to
the house of Satish @ Satto at about 4.00
p.m., then father of Satish @ Satto
namely Mansho Ram, accused-revisionist
no. 5, father of Manoj namely Keshav,
accused revisionist no. 4 and three
unknown persons had badly assaulted the
opposite party no.2 by kicks and fists and
her hairs were cut by scissor by daughter
of
Mansho
Ram
namely
Chando,
accused-revisionist no. 6. They all had
threatened her that she would be made to
go around the village with her face
blackened.
This
occurrence
was
witnessed by Nando, Brijesh and Vishnu.
The opposite party no. 2 had gone to
404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lodge report of this occurrence at police
station Farah, which was not recorded as
the accused revisionist no. 3, Vasu Dev
had good relation with the police and
thereafter on 7.9.2016 an application was
given by her to the S.S.P., Mathura but
nothing was done. Thereafter, on this
application, subsequent to the order
passed by the Court, this FIR was
recorded on the above date.

5. After investigation of this case,
the police has submitted charge-sheet
against the accused Satish @ Satto only
under section 376 and 366 IPC while rest
of the accused were exonerated.

6. During trial the statement of only
one witness i.e. opposite party no. 2 as
PW1 has been recorded and thereafter an
application 22-Ka was moved by opposite
party no. 2 to summon other co-accused
under section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial.
The said application has been allowed by
the trial court vide impugned order dated
17.04.2019 summoning the accusedrevisionist
Lokesh,
revisionist
no.1,
Manoj, revisionist no.2, Vasu @ Vasu,
revisionist no. 3 to face trial under section
376D, 363, 366 and 379 IPC while other
co-accused Keshav revisionist no. 4,
Mansho Ram, revisionist no.5 and Km.
Chando revisionist no. 6 have been
summoned to face trial under sections
323, 504, 506 IPC.

7. The arguments made from the
side of the revisionists are that the
informant had illicit relationship with coaccused Satish @ Satto with whom she
had eloped on 24.4.2016, six days
thereafter her husband had lodged an
NCR on 01.05.2016 against co-accused
Satish @ Satto under section 498 IPC at
P.S. Farah, District Mathura wherein he
had admitted that the informant of this
case had fled with the co-accused Satish
@ Satto of her own free will, the said
NCR is annexed as Annexure-1. Next it is
argued that two months thereafter the
informant returned home with Satish @
Satto and was living with her husband,
but no complaint was moved by the
husband of informant or any of his family
members
regarding
this
incident.
Thereafter, after four months of the
occurrence,
informant
moved
an
application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C
before J.M. II, Mathura in respect of this
occurrence because her husband and other
family members had put pressure upon
her to lodge the report against co-accused
Satish @ Satto. The informant was
medically examined by the doctor but no
injuries were seen. The statements of
independent witnesses, who are 10 in
number, which include the husband of the
informant, were recorded. It is stated that
no such incident had occurred. It was
mentioned
that
there
existed
illicit
relationship between informant and coaccused Satish @ Satto. These statements
are annexed as Annexure-6. Next it is
argued that the Investigating Officer after
collecting the evidence and examining the
statement of informant and her husband
as
well
as
independent
witnesses,
exonerated all the accused persons except
the co-accused Satish @ Satto against
whom charge-sheet no. 10/17 was filed
under section 366 and 376 IPC. The said
co-accused has been granted bail vide
order dated 29.03.2017. The trial had
started and two years thereafter the
informant moved the present application
on 01.01.2019 for calling the accusedrevisionists under section 319 Cr.P.C to
face trial which has been erroneously
allowed by the trial court. The opposite
party no. 2 is a major lady of 40 years of
3 All. Lokesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
405
age having five children aged about 13,
12, 10, 6 and 3 years. It is admitted by her
in the statement under section 161 and
164 Cr.P.C. that co-accused Satish @
Satto was doing job of manufacturing
carpet (Galicha) for about 10-12 years
with her husband. Further, it is mentioned
in her statement recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C. that the informant admitted
illicit relationship with co-accused Satish
@ Satto and has admitted that she had
gone with the said accused and spent two
months time with each other as husband
and wife. Further, it is argued that the
revisionist nos. 1 and 2 are cousin
brothers. Revisionist nos. 3 and 4 are
uncle. The revisionist no. 5 is father and
revisionist no. 6 is real sister of coaccused Satish @ Satto, hence they all
belong to the family members of coaccused Satish @ Satto. Since the
husband of the informant and his family
members wanted to settle all criminal
cases lodged against them, in order to
create pressure upon the revisionists, this
false case has been lodged. Further, it is
argued that the revisionist no. 6 (sister of
co-accused Satish @ Satto) had filed a
complaint against the family members of
the informant under section 354B, 323,
504, 506, 452 IPC at P.S. Farah District
Mathura on 18.9.2016, copy of which is
annexed as Annexure-11. Revisionist no.
5(father of the co-accused Satish @ Satto)
has filed a complaint against the family
members of the informant under sections
147, 148, 149, 354B, 323, 504, 506 and
452 IPC at P.S. Farah, District Mathura,
copy of which is annexed as Annexure12. Further, it is argued that the
revisionist no. 5 had already lodged an
FIR against the family members of the
informant being case crime no. 419 of
2016 under section 307 IPC at P.S. Farah
on 17.11.2016, hence the impugned order
deserves to be quashed as the same has
been passed by the trial court erroneously
over looking the fact that the said
application was moved by the opposite
party no.2 under pressure from her
husband and family members in order to
put pressure upon the revisionists to
compromise the cases which were filed
from their side against family members of
the opposite party no. 2. Moreover, police
has also not found prima-facie case made
out against the accused-revisionists and
accordingly charge-sheet was not filed
against
them
under
abovementioned
sections.
The
independent
witnesses
including husband of the informant had
not supported the prosecution version.
These aspects have not been taken into
consideration by the trial court while
passing the impugned order.

8. No counter affidavit has been
filed from the side of the opposite party
no. 2 as well as from the side of learned
A.G.A. although learned A.G.A. has
vehemently opposed the prayer for
quashing of the charge-sheet and argued
that the impugned order does not suffer
from any infirmity as in the statement
under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well
as in her statement given before the trial
court as PW1, the victim/opposite party
no. 2 has supported the prosecution
version and discrepancies which appear in
the version mentioned in FIR as well as
her statements at three stages, cannot be
seen in proceedings under section 482
Cr.P.C. hence, this revision deserves to be
dismissed.

9. I have gone through the statement
of the informant recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that
her husband does work of manufacturing
carpet (Galicha). Her neighbourer Satish
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
@ Satto also used to work with her
husband. On 24.4.2016 when her husband
had gone to bring wool from Agra, at
about 5.00 p.m. Satish @ Satto, Lokesh,
Manoj and Vasu Dev came to her house
and forcibly had taken her away in a car
and on way some narcotic substance was
given to her by which she fainted.
Thereafter, she was taken to Jaipur and
was kept at various unknown places and
all of them had committed rape upon her.
They had also stolen away Rs.10,000/-
and jewellery from her house and on
26.8.2016 they had brought her back to
her village and then she disclosed all this
to her husband Naresh and when
thereafter she and Naresh went to the
house of Satish @ Satto, co-accused, then
Vasu Dev, Mansho Ram and Shimbhu,
Lokesh, Manoj, Keshav and Chanddo
who were present there, had beaten and
abused her, her husband and had
threatened that in case they make a
complaint about this incident at police
station, they would not be allowed to live
in village. The statement recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C., which is annexed at
page 44 of the paper book, contains the
same facts, which have been mentioned in
her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
apart from the fact that in this statement it
is also stated that when she and her
husband went to the house of Satish @
Satto, they had beaten both of them badly
and her hair were also cut. She has five
children aged between 3 to 12 years. In
her statement given in examination-inchief it is stated that Satish @ Satto was
her neighbour, who used to tease her. On
24.4.2016 at 5.00 p.m. when her husband
had gone to Agra, accused-revisionist
nos. 1 to 3 along with co-accused Satish
@ Satto had abducted her on the point of
pistol and had also stolen R.10,000/- as
well as jewellery from her house and had
taken her in a vehicle. She was given
narcotic substance and was kept at some
unknown place in Jaipur. All the four
accused had gang raped her. When she
tried to raise alarm, they have threatened
that her husband would be killed. Lokesh
and Manoj had made few dirty video with
co-accused Satish @ Satto of her and her
signatures were also obtained on some
blank papers and had threatened that in
case she discloses about this occurrence,
her dirty video would be placed at
internet. She continued to be kept at
different places during four months
period while she was being raped
repeatedly by them and on 26.8.20016
they had brought her back in the village at
about 4.00 a.m. and then she narrated the
entire episode to her husband. When her
husband had taken her to the house of
Satish @ Satto where father of Satish @
Satto namely Mansho Ram and father of
Manoj
namely
Keshav
and
three
unknown persons had beaten her and her
husband by kicks and fists and the
daughter of Mansho Ram namely Chando
had cut her hair and had threatened her
that her face would be blackened and she
would be made to move around the
village. This occurrence was witnessed by
Nando, Brijesh and Vishnu.

10. In cross-examination, she has
proved her statement under section 164
Cr.P.C. as paper no. Ka and her
application given under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. as exhibit Ka-1.Further she has
submitted that she is an illiterate lady. Her
marriage was performed 17 years ago and
that she used to often visit her parent's
house which is located in Agra. In her
house the work of manufacturing of
carpet is done and her husband had also
done the same work. They did not employ
any person for the said work. The house
3 All. Lokesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
407
of Satish @ Satto was about 10-12 houses
away from her house. She did not know
who Satish was. Satish had never worked
any work of manufacturing of carpet at
her place. She had not mentioned in her
complaint that Satish @ Satto used to do
the work of manufacturing Galicha in her
house. The Investigating Officer had
interrogated her to whom she had not
stated that Satish @ Satto used to do work
of manufacturing of Galicha in her house.
The occurrence is of 24.4.2016 and
thereafter she had stated on her own that
she had gone to lodge report on 26.8.2016
and during this four months, she never
made any report nor does she know as to
whether her husband had lodged any
report or not. Further having read out the
paper no. 4A/21, She stated that her
husband had not lodged the said report at
police station and further pointed out that
her husband was sitting at the back on
chair. On the date of occurrence, she was
alone in her house and in front of her
house lives Shiv Ganesh Thakur, who has
a ''Thela', in his house his mother,
daughter-in-law and children reside. On
the date of occurrence Shiv Ganesh was
not at home. She often visits his house.
Co-accused Satish @ Satto used to make
frequent visit to her house but her
husband would not go to the house of
Satish @ Satto nor had he gone in
marriage etc. at the house of Satish. On
the date of occurrence he did not know
Satish @ Satto nor did she know his
family members. She was living in the
said village Parkham for the last six years,
prior to that she was living in Agra. Her
daughter aged about 15 years also stated
to have studied in class IX at Parkham.
She
has
further
stated
in
cross
examination that the Investigating Officer
had recorded her statement under threat.
The threat was given by Investigating
Officer that if she gives any statement
against these four accused persons, the
same act would be committed with her by
him which act was committed by these
accused persons with her. She had made
complaint orally to the Magistrate about
this threat. She does not know the name
of the Investigating Officer. First of all
the co-accused Satish @ Satto, Manoj,
Vasu and Pankaj had taken her to Jaipur
in a factory which was deserted where
they had kept her for 15 days. There was
no house and shop near that factory. All
these four accused had lived with her for
2-3 days and thereafter only Satish @
Satto was left behind. There was a
Chawkidar in the said factory who was
given some money by the accused. The
Chawkidar had left the factory on the
very first day. In the meantime, no one
came in the factory. She had narrated
about this fact to the Investigating Officer
which has not been recorded by him.
About this fact that she was taken to the
factory was not mentioned by him in his
report but she could not tell its reason.
Satish and Manoj are the real brothers.
Lokesh is also brother and Vasu is uncle.
All these four accused had committed
rape upon her. She did not like Satish @
Satto nor any other co-accused. She had
suffered internal injury but she was not
medically examined for the same. She
had told the Investigating Officer about
the places where the accused had taken
her and fled leaving her behind. She had
not told the Investigating Officer that the
accused was working in her house for
manufacturing the carpet because of
which
she
had
developed
illicit
relationship with him. If the same has
been recorded by him, she could not tell
its reason. It is wrong to say that Satish
had
worked
in
her
house
for
manufacturing of carpet (Galicha). She
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had denied that because of enmity, she
has lodged this report against the
members of the family of the co-accused
Satish.

11. After perusal of the statements
which have been cited above, I have gone
through the impugned order passed by the
trial court and find that the trial court has
recorded in the impugned judgment that the
victim has supported the prosecution version
as mentioned in the FIR, in her statement
given under section 164 Cr.P.C. and also the
same version has been given by her in her
statement before the Court against the accused
revisionist Lokesh, Manoj, Vasu, therefore, he
has summoned them for offence under section
376D, 363, 366 and 379 IPC which are
prima-facie made out against them and as
regard other co-accused Keshav, Mansho
Ram and Km. Chando offence under section
323, 504, 506 IPC are made out. He has also
cited principle upon which he has found the
prima-facie case made out against the
accused-revisionist because he has mentioned
that there was no necessity at this stage to
make microscopies analysis of the statements
of the witnesses and only prima-facie it was to
be as to whether the same was made out or
not in view of that the court below has
exercised its discretion for summoning the
accused-revisionists for offence under the
abovementioned sections. I see no infirmity in
the impugned order. It would be appropriate
to mention here the legal principles which
have been pronounced by Supreme Court in
catena of judgments as to under what
circumstances the accused may be summoned
under section 319 Cr.P.C.

12. In Dev Wati vs. State of
Haryana, (2019) 4 SCC 3219, in this
case a missing complaint was lodged by
the brother of the deceased and after two
days the dead body of the deceased was
found. Three accused were put to trial
under section 302 read with 34 IPC apart
from other offence. When evidence was
being recorded, PW9 (brother of the
deceased) deposed before the sessions
court
impleading
the
appellant.
Thereafter, the application filed by PW9
under section 319 Cr.P.C. before the
Sessions Court was allowed and the
appellants were summoned to face trial,
which was upheld by the High Court
reiterating that word ''appear' means
''clear to the comprehension' or a phrase
near to, if not synonymous with "proved",
and imparts a lesser degree of probability
then proof. Though only a prima-facie
case is to be established from the
evidence led before the Court, it requires
much stronger evidence than a mere
probability of the complicity of the
persons against whom the deponent has
deposed. The test that has to be applied is
of a degree of satisfaction which is more
than that a prima-facie case as exercised
at the time of framing of charge but short
of satisfaction to an extent that evidence,
if goes unrebutted, may lead to conviction
of the proposed accused. In the absence of
such satisfaction, the court should refrain
from exercising the power under section
319 Cr.P.C. On considering deposition of
PW9, it was held that no valid ground
was found to take a different view from
that of High Court and the Sessions Court
and it was recorded that no interference
with the impugned order was warranted.

13. In view of above proportion of law,
it is quite evident that for summoning a person
as accused under section 319 Cr.P.C. if the
court feels satisfied from the evidence which
has come on record that there was much
stronger evidence which showed not merely
probability of complicity of the said person of
being involved in commission of offence rather
3 All. Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
409
the evidence was found of such level that if
the same was left unrebutted, it would result
in conviction of the said person as an accused
then accused shall be summoned. In the
present case, if the said interpretation of the
provision of section 319 Cr.P.C. is applied, I
find that the victim has consistently given her
statements in support of the prosecution case
narrated by her in FIR. The case which she
established in FIR was corroborated by her in
statements under sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. with slight variation and also in her
statement given before the trial court, in
which she has also been cross-examined at
length. The defence of the accusedrevisionists is that since from the side of the
revisionists several cases were filed against
the family members of the husband of the
opposite party no.2 therefore, under influence
/ pressure from the side of her husband
exerted upon opposite party no. 2, she has
lodged this false FIR, this is a subject matter
of evidence which would be decided by the
trial court. Therefore, at this stage, for this
Court it would not proper to express any
opinion in this regard in proceedings u/s 482
Cr.P.C. No doubt this Court finds that there
are several discrepancies and also it is found
that allegation of gang rape is leveled against
two brothers and uncle of accused Satish @
Satto which seems unusual that real brothers
would indulge in this kind of act together, it
appears to be subject matter of evidence. No
opinion can be expressed in this regard and as
regards accused nos. 4 to 6, they are found to
have committed offences under section 323,
504, 506 IPC only which are not serious
offences, hence this Court deems it proper to
grant them relief to the extent that they may
approach the trial court within 30 days and
seeks bail.

14. The prayer for quashing the
proceedings is refused with regard to
revisionist nos. 1 to 3.

15. However, it is provided that if
the revisionist nos. 4 to 6 appear and
surrender before the court below within
30 days from today and apply for bail,
then the bail application of the revisionist
nos. 4 to 6 be considered and decided in
view of the settled law laid-down by this
Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a
period of 30 days from today or till the
disposal of the application for grant of
bail whichever is earlier, no coercive
action
shall
be
taken
against
the
revisionist nos. 4 to 6. However, in case,
the revisionist nos. 4 to 6 do not appear
before the Court below within the
aforesaid period, coercive action shall be
taken against them.

16. With aforesaid direction, this
revision is finally disposed of.
----------

(2019)11ILR A409

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2457 OF 2017

Pramod Kumar Singh & Anr.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties/Complainants

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Shudhanshu Pandey, Sri V.K. Twivedi