# Revisionist v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 247
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 5775 of 2006
- **Bench:** K.N. Ojha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40847
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-section-
156(3)-Rejection
of
complaint-No
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
evidence
about
injury-out
of
13
witnesses-no witness support the caserejection
of
application-held-No
jurisdictional error illegality found.

Held: Para 5

In this case where there is no evidence
that injury was caused and no witness
supports the case of the complaint, if the
learned Magistrate has rejected the
application and under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C there appears no jurisdictional
error,
illegality
irregularity
in
the
impugned
order.
The
revision
is
dismissed at the admission stage
Case law discussed:
1976 SCC (Crl.)-507
AIR 1992 SC-1815

## Text

1 All] Smt. Ranju V. State of U.P. and others
247
thereof is satisfactory. Once the court
accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is
the result of positive exercise of discretion
and normally the superior court should
not disturb such finding, much less in
revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise
of discretion was on wholly untenable
grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is
a different matter when the first court
refuses to condone the delay. In such
cases, the superior court would be free to
consider the cause shown for the delay
afresh and it is open to such superior court
to come to its own finding even
untrammeled by the conclusion of the
lower court."

10. In view of the aforesaid, it is
clear that the State Government being an
impersonal machinery and because of its
bureaucratic methodology imbued with
the note-making, file pushing and passing
-on-the buck ethos, certain amount of
latitude is required provided it shows
sufficient cause. In the present case,
sufficient cause which has been alleged is
that the file had to travel from one table to
another and consequently, in the cases
relating to the State Government, the
Court should take a liberal approach.
Necessary details are lacking in this
regard. Nothing has been stated or
brought on the record as to when the
permission was sought from the higher
authority for filing a writ petition. No
details have been given as to how the
delay occurred from one table to another
table. Merely by making a bald statement
that the delay occurred because of the
movement of the file from one table to
another does not come within the
parameter of the words "sufficient cause"
for the court to exercise its discretion and
condone the delay. If there had been a
delay at the behest of some officer or
employee, some responsibility should
have been fixed upon that officer or
employee
concerned,
but
no
such
allegation has been made. Further the
averment that the court should take a
lenient view in matters relating to the
State Government is a clear indication
that the State Government thinks that it is
above the law and that it can get away
with anything. In my opinion, these
averments are insufficient for the Court to
hold that sufficient cause was made out
by the petitioner for condoning the delay
and for the Court to entertain a petition
beyond the stipulated period. In the
opinion of the Court, on the basis of a
bald averment, sufficient cause has not
been explained and therefore, the Court is
not inclined to give any kind of latitude to
the State Government. Consequently, the
Court is not inclined to entertain this writ
petition at this belated stage.

11. The writ petition is dismissed on
the ground of laches.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 5775 of 2006

Smt. Ranju

...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for Revisionist:
Sri Prashant Kumar Singh

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

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-section-
156(3)-Rejection
of
complaint-No
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
evidence
about
injury-out
of
13
witnesses-no witness support the caserejection
of
application-held-No
jurisdictional error illegality found.

Held: Para 5

In this case where there is no evidence
that injury was caused and no witness
supports the case of the complaint, if the
learned Magistrate has rejected the
application and under section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C there appears no jurisdictional
error,
illegality
irregularity
in
the
impugned
order.
The
revision
is
dismissed at the admission stage
Case law discussed:
1976 SCC (Crl.)-507
AIR 1992 SC-1815

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Oiha, J.)

1. Smt. Ranju Devi has preferred
instant revision against order dated
10.7.05 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge (D.A.A.) Kanpur Dehat in Misc.
Application No. Nil of 2006 whereby
application moved under section 156 (3)
of Cr.P.C, Police Station Ghatampur,
district Kanpur Nagar was rejected.

2. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh
learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned AGA and have gone through the
record. Record shows that revisionist Smt.
Ranju Devi moved application against 13
persons including four ladies under
section 156(3) Cr.PC containing the fact
that Crime No. 222/06 under section 308
IPC was registered against her husband
Rajendra Singh. Later on the case was
converted under section 304 IPC. Her
husband surrendered in the court of
C.J.M. Kanpur Dehat on 29.4.06. It is said
that on 1.6.05 revisionist 2 to 14 went to
her residence, looted Rs.20,000/= cash,
ornaments worth Rs.40,000/=, took away
2 buffaloes, 2 goats, and 10 quintals
wheat etc. Many persons witnessed the
occurrence. She went to lodge FIR at
Police Station Ghatampur, it was not
written, then she moved application to the
S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar but no action was
taken. Thereafter she moved application
under section 156(3) Cr.PC which was
rejected by learned Addl. Sessions Judge
(D.A.A.) Kanpur Dehat, hence this
revision.

3. A perusal of the record shows that
as many as 13 persons made raid at the
house of the revisionist but not even a
single abrasion or contusion was caused
to her, nor there is any injury report· in
support of the fact that injury was caused
to her. According to allegation of the
revisionist the occurrence was witnessed
by many persons including Ram Sewak,
Hanuman, and Lakhan Lal etc. but no
person has filed affidavit in support of the
allegation of the revisionist. If animals, 10
quintals wheat etc. would have been taken
away by the respondent 2 to 14 then
conveyance would have been specified in
respect of which the revisionist stated
nothing. It does not appear natural that
such heinous offence was committed but
there is no evidence in support of it. Mere
allegation of damage being caused, loot
being made cannot be taken to be
sufficient' unless natural consequences
follow which is medical examination of
the
victim-revisionist,
statement
or
affidavit of the witnesses, details of the
manner in which looted articles were
taken away. If an allegation merely
contains the ingredients of the offence but
it does not appear natural merely on the
basis of allegation as many as 13 persons
cannot be prosecuted.

4. It has been held in 1976 SCC
(Crl.) 507 Smt. Nagawwa V. Veeranna
1 All] Raju and another V. State of U.P. and another
249
Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others by
Hon'ble the Apex Court that where the
allegation made in the complaint are
patently
absurd
or
are
inherently
improbable so that no prudent person can
ever reach a conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the "accused or the discretion of the
Magistrate is based on no evidence. The
prayer for summoning the accused can be
rejected. In 1992 SC 1815 Punjab
National Bank v. Surendra Prasad
Sinha it has been held by Hon'ble the
Apex Court that relevant fact and
circumstances
should
be
considered
before issuing the process: Process issued
mechanically on the basis of complaint
filed as vendetta to harass persons
deserves to be quashed because judicial
process would not be an instrument of
oppression of needless harassment.

5. In this case where there is no
evidence that injury was caused and no
witness
supports
the
case
of
the
complaint, if the learned Magistrate has
rejected the application and under section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C
there
appears
no
jurisdictional error, illegality irregularity
in the impugned order. The revision is
dismissed at the admission stage.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No. 6445 of 2006

Raju and another
...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another

...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey
Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi

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

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 397
(2)-Trail Court by exercising power
under section 311 Cr.P.C.- summoned
the witness for cross examination-for
just
decision-re-examination
P.W.
2
must-such order being interlocutoryrevision held-bar under section 397 (2)
Cr.P.C.

Case law relied:
1977 SCC (Crl.) 585

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.)

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tripathi
holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar
Dubey,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists and the learned A.G.A.

Exercising power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. the Additional Sessions Judge,
F.T.C. No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T.
No.250 of 2006, State Vs. Raju and other,
under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Dankaru,
district Gautam Budh Nagar has resummoned the P.W.2 for further crossexamination vide his impugned order
dated 9.11.2006. In view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Amar Nath
And Others versus State of Haryana
and Another 1977 SCC (Cr.) 585, the
said order of summoning a witness is
nothing but an interlocutory order and a
revision against such an order is barred
under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Further the
trial court was of the opinion that for just
decision of the case reexamination of
P.W.2 is a must. This discretionary power
of the trial court should not be in any way
curtailed by this court while exercising its