Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJENDRA SINGH versus DEVI SARAN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajendra Singh v. Devi Saran - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 512 of 1987 [2005] RD-AH 6735 (1 December 2005)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 1

                Criminal Revision No. 512 of 1987

     Rajendra Singh   . . . . .  . Vs.   . . . . . .  .Devi Prasad and another.

---

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

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.

Dated:1.12.2005

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.