Back
MOHD. ASLAM
Sawan @ Vishal Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Since, both the applications arise out of the same case crime, they are being decided by this common order.
2. Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been moved seeking quashing of the impugned judgement and order dated 12.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2020 (CNR No. UP AD 01-000630-2020), under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (Saritendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. and Another), arising out of order dated 07.01.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Allahabad in Criminal Case No.2198 of 2017 (State of U.P. vs. Vishal and Others), under Sections 498-A, 308 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Sarai Inayat, District-Allahabad as well as the consequential proceedings.
4. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party no.2, Saritendra Kumar (informant) lodged the first information report against the accused-applicants and three others on 27.07.2016
The judgment emphasized the rights of the informant, the duty of the police to inform the informant about the result of the investigation, and the need for the informant to be heard before the court ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must independently consider the materials in the case diary and arrive at a satisfaction that the ingredients of the offence e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not limited by the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and the Court should ....
There is no legal bar against further investigation. Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code does not restrict reopening of the case in which charge-sheet has already been submitted and cognizance ....
General and omnibus allegations do not warrant prosecution under Section 498-A IPC without new evidence.
The magistrate has the authority to take cognizance of offences based on available evidence, and refusal of medical examination does not negate the possibility of an offence.
The court emphasized the need to establish a prima facie case against the accused and the limitations of the court's role at the stage of framing charges. It highlighted the importance of not questio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
