Back
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Irshad Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 to contest this criminal revision today.
2. Counter affidavit has already been filed by respondent no. 2 in this case. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that he is not inclined to file rejoinder affidavit and prayed for hearing the matter on merits.
3. The present criminal revision is filed against the order dated 4.11.2022 passed by learned C.J.M. Jalaun at Orai in Misc. Case No. 327 of 2019 (State vs. Irshad Khan and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 162 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 332, 353, 420, 447, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun. By the impugned order, learned C.J.M. has dismissed the discharge application 24 kha moved by the accused persons and issued bailable warrant against absentee accused Nausad.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the informant lodged an FIR on the basis of written report on 18.7.2018 stating that he is Lekhpal of Kasba Kalpi and plot no. 38/4 area 0.170 and plot no. 38/6 area 0.210 hectare, to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper procedure for handling discharge applications in cases triable by the court of session, as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure ....
The rejection of a discharge application is valid when a prima facie case exists based on the police report, regardless of subsequent exoneration in departmental inquiries.
The right of the accused to cross-examine witnesses before framing of charges is a valuable right, and the application of Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge should be considered in light of this ri....
The accused has the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before framing of charges.
Filing simultaneous revisions in different courts on the same matter violates Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and constitutes misuse of legal process.
The Executive Magistrate's findings on possession under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are binding unless proven perverse, and jurisdiction over title disputes lies with civil courts.
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
