Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ABDUL SHAHID
Chandraprakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, assisted by Sri Mayank Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.
2. This criminal revision is preferred against the order dated 6.1.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Gorakhpur in Case No. 121071 of 2021 (State Vs. Chandra Prakash Yadav and others) arising out of case crime No. 375 of 2019, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
3. The brief contents of the case is that the First Information Report of the incident was lodged on 13.10.2019, at case crime No. 375 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The named persons in the FIR are (1) Ravindra Kumar Singh, (2) Arvind Nagpal, (3) Sanjay Nagpal, (4) Chandra Prakash Yadav, (5) Sushil Narula, (6) Salim Khan, (7) Shamsher Singh Yadav, (8) Ram Pal Yadav and (9) Pramod Kumar Bhandari.
4. The complainant, Hariom Gupta/opposite party no.2 has lodged F.I.R., stating that the Sri Triloki Nath Gupta, husband of Smt. Ramrati Gupta, died on 9.5.2001. Smt. Ramrati Gupta had adopte
Criminal proceedings cannot supersede pending civil matters; ongoing civil disputes should not be criminalized unless substantial evidence exists.
Criminal proceedings for forgery cannot proceed without challenging the validity of the disputed document in a competent civil court.
Filing simultaneous revisions in different courts on the same matter violates Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and constitutes misuse of legal process.
At the stage of considering an application for discharge, the court must proceed on the assumption that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determin....
The public prosecutor must independently assess the legitimacy of withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C, ensuring it serves public justice.
Point of law : Applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in torrent and thus exercise of the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and not in routine manner.
The need for a responsible invocation of the power u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code for registration of FIRs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of explaining inordinate delay in filing a revision petition and the sparing exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.....
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
