High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Snehlata Alias Munni Devi & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1290 of 2001  RD-AH 13586 (6 August 2007)
Criminal Revision No. 1290 of 2001
Snehlata & others . ..............................Revisionists.
1.State o f U.P.
2.Sri Kailash Chandra...........................Respondents-accused.
Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.)
1. By means of this revision under section 397/401 of the code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C. for short), summoning order dated 23.01.2001, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah, in Crl. Misc. Case No. 04 of 1999 (Kailash Chandra vs. Smt. Sneh Lata & others) has been challenged. By the impugned order, the revisionists-accused have been summoned to face the trial under section 304/201 IPC, in Case Crime No. 582 of 1998, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Etah.
2. The revision was listed for hearing on 30.07.2007. When the case was called out, counsel for the revisionists and O.P. No. 2 did not come to argue. Hence argument of the learned AGA on behalf of State of U.P. has only been heard.
3. At the outset, it was submitted by learned AGA that instant revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable and is barred by section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. For this submission the learned AGA has placed reliance on the following rulings:-
1. Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others 2004(50) ACC 924 (SC).
2. Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2005(51)ACC 684 (SC).
3. Bhajan Lal and others vs. State of U.P. and another 2006(55) ACC 942.
4. Having gone through the rulings, cited above, aforesaid submission made by learned AGA has got force. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) has held that the only remedy available for the accused against summoning order is to move application under section 482 Cr. P. C. in the High Court. Placing reliance on these rulings, this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal vs. State of U.P. (supra) has held that revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable. Hence having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in above mentioned rulings, this revision has to be dismissed being not legally maintainable. The accused-revisionists may move this Court in the proceeding under section 482 Cr. P. C., if they so advised. Since the revision is being dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable, hence it is not necessary to go into the merit of the impugned order.
5. Consequently, the revision is hereby dismissed as not legally maintainable.
Office to send a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Etah for necessary action.
Dated:- 06th August 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.