# Revisionists v. The State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 288 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-02-29 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1340 of 2006 - **Bench:** Vijay Kumar Verma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionists-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-another-41046 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183territorial Jurisdiction-offence took place in district Fatehpur during course of railway journey in Ist class coachRejection of application under Section 156 (1) by Magistrate Fatehpur with observation to lodge the same at Patnawholly misconceived-Magistrate wrongly interpreted the said provision-order setaside-with direction to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Held: Para 7 The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that it is not essential for a person to lodge complaint in the Court of origin of journey or the court of its destination. In the present case the journey started from Delhi and ended at Patna and therefore, the applicant was well within his right to lodge a complaint at any intervening district before the competent Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur wrongly interpreted the said provision by holding that the FIR should have been got lodged at Patna. This opinion of CJM is contrary to Section 183 Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this ground alone I set aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2007 passed by CJM Fatehpur on the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Case law discussed: Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General page 439 ## Text 288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.02.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Revision No. 1340 of 2006 Rajeshwar Prasad and others ...Revisionists Versus The State of U.P. and another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionists: Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava Sri Vinod Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri Rajesh Kumar Gupta Sri Rajesh Kishore A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397 (2)-Criminal Revision-issue of Non bailable warrant-interlocutory order-No final order passed-revision-held not maintainable. Held: Para 4 The order issuing warrant is interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. and hence, revision against the impugned order dated 06.01.2006 is also not maintainable Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Mohd. Usman Vs. State of U.P. (2002 (40) ACC 901). Case law discussed: [2004 (50) ACC 9241, [2005 (51) ACC 6841, [2006 (55) ACC 942], (2002 (40) ACC 901) (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) Heard Sri Vinod Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the record. 2. Instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order dated 01.09.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad in Criminal complaint case no.2702 of 2004 (State Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and others), whereby the accusedrevisionists have been summoned to face the trial. Order dated 06.01.2006 issuing bailable warrant has also been challenged. 3. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others [2004 (50) ACC 9241 and Subramanium Sethuraman [2005 (51) ACC 6841, revision against summoning order is not maintainable, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the only remedy available to the accused against summoning order is to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court also in the case of Bhajan Lal and others Vs. State U.P. and another [2006 (55) ACC 942] has held that revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable. 4. The order issuing warrant is interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. and hence, revision against the impugned order dated 06.01.2006 is also not maintainable Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Mohd. Usman Vs. State of U.P. (2002 (40) ACC 901). 5. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid cases, instant revision has to be dismissed. However the accused may move this Court in the 1 All] Rajeshwar Prasad and others V. The State of U.P. and another 289 proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if they so advised. 6. With these observations, the revision is hereby dismissed, being not legally maintainable. Interim order dated 09.03.2006 stands vacated. 7. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the lower Court concerned for further necessary action. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.02.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. Criminal Misc. Application No.19883 of 2007 Premjit Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Satish Chaturvedi Sri Satya Prakash Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 183territorial Jurisdiction-offence took place in district Fatehpur during course of railway journey in Ist class coachRejection of application under Section 156 (1) by Magistrate Fatehpur with observation to lodge the same at Patnawholly misconceived-Magistrate wrongly interpreted the said provision-order setaside-with direction to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. Held: Para 7 The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that it is not essential for a person to lodge complaint in the Court of origin of journey or the court of its destination. In the present case the journey started from Delhi and ended at Patna and therefore, the applicant was well within his right to lodge a complaint at any intervening district before the competent Magistrate. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur wrongly interpreted the said provision by holding that the FIR should have been got lodged at Patna. This opinion of CJM is contrary to Section 183 Cr.P.C. ex-facie and on this ground alone I set aside the impugned order dated 8.8.2007 passed by CJM Fatehpur on the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Case law discussed: Moolbaksh 25 Criminal Law General page 439 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. J.) 1. Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA in opposition. 2. The applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. refusing to direct registration of FIR and investigation of the offence. 3. At the time of admission, learned AGA contended that notice be issued to respondents nos.2 and 3, namely, Smt. Sujata and Ms. Bandana Preyashi before finally disposing of this application. This is a stage where the FIR has not been registered as yet. Whether the FIR should be registered or not is a matter which is to be decided from the prayer made by the victim complainant. The proposed accused persons (respondents nos.2 and 3, namely, Smt. Sujata and Ms. Bandana Preyashi) have got no right to be heard at