Mukesh Bansal VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

RAHUL CHATURVEDI
Mukesh Bansal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
In Criminal Revision No.1126/2022
For the Revisionists:Rajeev Nayan Singh, Ritukar Gupta, Vinod Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.
In Criminal Revision No.1187/2022
For the Revisionists:Rajeev Nayan Singh, Ritukar Gupta, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.
Criminal Revision No.1122/2022
For the Revisionists:Ritukar Gupta,Rajeev Nayan Singh,Vinod Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.

JUDGMENT

Rahul Chaturvedi, J.—Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Nayan Singh and Sri Ritukar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in all the above captioned revisions and as such, all the matters has ripe for final submissions to be adjudicated on merits.

3. Coincidentally, all the aforesaid three revisionists, are assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 03.03.2022 through their respective revisions mentioned above whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Hapur, by three different orders of the same date i.e 03.03.2022, have rejected all the discharge applications of the revisionists under section 227 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 19 of 2020 (State v. Manju Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 567 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 504, 506, 307 and 120-B IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur.

Since, order dated 03.03.2022 has been passed on three different applications in the same Sessions Trial, therefore, for the sa