High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajendra Singh v. Devi Saran - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 512 of 1987  RD-AH 6735 (1 December 2005)
Court no. 1
Criminal Revision No. 512 of 1987
Rajendra Singh . . . . . . Vs. . . . . . . .Devi Prasad and another.
List has been revised.
None is present for the revisionist.
This revision was filed through Sri Rajesh Tandon, Advocate, who has now been elevated to the Bench of Uttaranchal High Court. It was ordered on 9.7.2004 to issue a notice to the revisionist to engage an other counsel. The notice was received back with the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr dated 30.7.2004 that the revisionist has left the village alongwith all his family members after selling his movable and immovable properties and his whereabouts are not known. Thereafter a fresh notice was ordered to be issued on 24.9.2004. This notice was also received back with the same report. It was further stated in it that the revisionist had left for Rohtak with all his family members 15 to 20 years ago and his address at Rohtak was not known to any one. Then again a notice was ordered to be issued for third time on 17.11.2004. It has also been received back with the same report.
It is thus clear that the revisionist has left his permanent abode and it is not possible to effect service upon him. The revision filed by him is against an order whereby the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr had allowed Criminal Revision no. 295 of 1985 and had quashed the order of summoning the accused as the proceedings were barred under section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. I perused the judgment and order passed by Sri Dinesh Mohan Arya, learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr and also heard the learned A.G.A. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has elaborately dealt with the provisions of section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. and has relied upon several rulings of this Court in support of his conclusion. The order passed by him does not suffer from any illegality.
It may also be mentioned that in the opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the private complaint filed by the complainant was barred, and the proper procedure for the complainant was to move the court, where the so called fictitious sale deed allegedly forged by the accused had been filed, to take necessary action in the matter and to file a complaint against the accused person. The complainant can follow this provision and seek proper remedy by moving an application in that court where the so called forged sale deed was filed. There is no force in this revision and it is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and the order of the learned III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr are confirmed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.