Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 149464 (ALL)

RAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

A482/5437/2025 · 2025-07-07

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38137 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5437 of 2025 Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Lalji Prasad Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 528 BNSS the applicant has challenged the validity of judgment and order dated 22.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.135 of 2024, whereby the revisional court has set aside the order dated 26.06.2024, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate Outlying Court, Nighasan, Kheri in Complaint No.1374 of 2022 summoning the opposite party no.2 to face trial of the offence and has remanded the matter to the trial court for being decided afresh. 3. The revisional court has found that there are major discrepancies regarding description of the incident and the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, which has been treated as a complaint, statement of the applicant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of the witnesses recorded under under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The revisional court has also noted that the complainant stated about the presence of two persons Hashmat and Lalla and has stated that they had witnessed the incident but the statement of those persons have not been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The revisional Court has concluded that the aforesaid discrepancies have been overlooked by the trial court as well and the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner. 4. Having gone through the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 I am of the view that the impugned order is based on sound and cogent reasons. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting any interference by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. The application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench