Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARAT BHUSHAN CHHABRA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bharat Bhushan Chhabra v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1314 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 14895 (3 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

RESERVED

Crl. Revision no. 1314 of 2004

Bharat Bhushan Chhabra. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Revisionist.

Versus

State of U.P. and another .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Parties.

----

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This is a a revision against the order dated 5.3.3004 passed by Sri Ram Raj, then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in Crl. Case no. 624 of 2004( Vishal Chhabara Vs. Bharat Bhushan) under section 500, I.P.C.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the complainant-O.P. no.2 had filed the above complaint against the accused revisionist under section 500 I.P.C. in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, and the learned Magistrate after recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused under section 500 I.P.C. vide his order dated 5.3.2004. Aggrieved by that order, the revisionist has filed this revision.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amit Singh for O.P. no.2.

When this revision came up for hearing I pointed out to the learned counsel for the revisionist that in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others' AIR 2004 S.C. 4674 and 'Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another'AIR 2004 SC 4711 the only remedy open to the accused against the summoning order is to file an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the present revision filed by him is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any law in support of his contention that the revision is maintainable.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the revision is not maintainable and it is hereby dismissed. The revisionist may, however, seek other suitable remedy in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Dated: 3.9.2007

RPP.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.