Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111557 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5810 of 2023 Revisionist :- Smt. Ishrawati Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjeev Kumar Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. None present on behalf of O.P. No.2 even in revised call. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant revision U/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed by learned Special Judge(SC/ST) Gorakhpur in Case No. 221 of 2023 (Smt. Ishrawati Devi Vs. Jitendra Chaurasiya and others) under Sections 307, 308, 325, 326, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station-Pipraich, District-Gorakhpur, whereby Special Judge(SC/ST) rejection the Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist moved an Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. but by the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 her application was dismissed by the court concerned. He further submitted that from her Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. it is apparent that quarrel took place between both the parties but in spite of that court concerned dismissed her application by way of impugned order. 5. He further submitted that from perusal of impugned order dated 04.07.2023, it reflects, application moved by the revisionist was dismissed on the ground that as per revisionist, incident occurred on 27.10.2022 and immediately thereafter injured was admitted in the hospital but as per discharge summery report of injured annexed along with the application, it reflects, injured was admitted in the hospital on 25.10.2022 i.e. even before the alleged date of incident and, therefore, prima facie, application moved by the revisionist appears to be based on false facts but actually, due to typographical error date of incident has been mentioned in the Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as 27.10.2022, therefore, impugned order dated 04.07.20223 is illegal. 6. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, impugned order dated 04.07.2023 is liable to be set aside and direction be given to the police station concerned to lodge the FIR against O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and conduct investigation accordingly. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of revisionist and submitted that revisionist made allegation against O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 that they made assault on 27.10.2022 and thereafter injured on the same day admitted in the hospital but from the discharge summery of the injured, it reflect, he was admitted in the hospital on 25.10.2022 i.e. well before the alleged incident of assault, therefore, court concerned rightly dismissed the Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that findings of facts cannot be disturbed by the revisional court unless & until the same is perverse one and from the record, it could not be reflected that finding recorded by the court concerned is perverse and against the record. 8. He further submitted that after dismissal of the application, it is very easy for the revisionist to argue that due to typographical error date of incident has been wrongly mentioned as 27.10.2022, therefore, instant revision is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. By way of instant revision, revisionist challenged the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the court concerned, by which her Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 11. From the impugned order dated 04.07.2023, it reflects, as per revisionist, incident of assault was made by O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 on 27.10.2022 and on the same day injured was admitted in the hospital but his discharge summery of the hospital indicates that he was admitted in the hospital on 25.10.2022 i.e. even before the alleged incident and after considering this fact, court concerned dismissed the Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist. 12. However, as per counsel for the revisionist, due to mistake date of incident has been mentioned in the Application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as 27.10.2022 in fact the date of incident was 25.10.2022 but the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist cannot be appreciated at this stage. 13. Therefore, considering the facts of the case discussed above, in view of this Court, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the court concerned. Accordingly, the instant revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad