Rajeshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Rajeshwar Prasad and ors. vs State of U.P. and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 29, 2008

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478989

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/478989
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Vijay Kumar Verma, J.
Decided On: Feb 29, 2008
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajeshwar Prasad and ors.

Respondent

State of U.P. and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P.
Reported In: 2008CriLJ2555

Excerpt

- ordervijay kumar verma, j.1. heard sri vinod srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and learned a.g.a. for the state and perused the record.2. instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order dated 1-9- 2005 passed by additional chief judicial magistrate, court no. 2, allahabad in criminal complaint case no. 2702 of 2004 (state v. rajeshwar prasad and ors.), whereby the accused-revisionists have been summoned to face the trial. order dated 6-1-2006 issuing bailable warrant has also been challenged.3. in view of the observations made by hon'ble apex court in the case of adalat prasad v. rooplal jindal and ors. 2004 (50) acc 924 : air 2004 sc 4674 and subramanium sethuraman v. state of maharashtra and anr. 2005 (51) acc 684 : air 2004 sc 4711, revision against summoning order is not maintainable, as the hon'ble apex court has held that the only remedy available to the accused against summoning order is to invoke the jurisdiction of high court under section 482 cr. p.c. this court also in the case of bhajan lal and ors. v. state of u. p. and anr. 2006 (55) acc 942 : (2006) 5 all lj 175 has held that revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable.4. the order issuing warrant is interlocutory order within the meaning of section 397(2) cr. p.c. and hence, revision against the impugned order dated 6-1-2006 is also not maintainable. reference in this regard may be made to the case of mohd. usman v. state of u.p. 2002 (40) acc 901.5. hence, keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid cases, instant revision has to be dismissed. however, the accused may move this court in the proceeding under section 482 cr. p.c. if they so advised.6. with these observations, the revision is hereby dismissed, being not legally maintainable. interim order dated 9-3-2006 stands vacated. the office is directed to send a copy of this order to the lower court concerned for further necessary action.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant revision has been preferred against the summoning order dated 1-9- 2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Allahabad in criminal complaint case No. 2702 of 2004 (State v. Rajeshwar Prasad and Ors.), whereby the accused-revisionists have been summoned to face the trial. Order dated 6-1-2006 issuing bailable warrant has also been challenged.

3. In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. 2004 (50) ACC 924 : AIR 2004 SC 4674 and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2005 (51) ACC 684 : AIR 2004 SC 4711, revision against summoning order is not maintainable, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the only remedy available to the accused against summoning order is to invoke the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This Court also in the case of Bhajan Lal and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Anr. 2006 (55) ACC 942 : (2006) 5 All LJ 175 has held that revision against summoning order is not legally maintainable.

4. The order issuing warrant is interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. and hence, revision against the impugned order dated 6-1-2006 is also not maintainable. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P. 2002 (40) ACC 901.

5. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down in aforesaid cases, instant revision has to be dismissed. However, the accused may move this Court in the proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P.C. If they so advised.

6. With these observations, the revision is hereby dismissed, being not legally maintainable. Interim order dated 9-3-2006 stands vacated. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the lower Court concerned for further necessary action.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Rajeshwar Prasad and ors. vs State of U.P. and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

Criminal