Rajvir and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar vs Sachiv Basic Shiksha Board, U.P. at Allahabad and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 09, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/918216

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/918216
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: S.C. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Nov 09, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4866 of 2010
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravindra Kumar

Advocate Sujeet Kumar; Arun Rana, Advs

Respondent

Sachiv Basic Shiksha Board, U.P. at Allahabad and Others

Advocate Govt. Advocate

Excerpt

.....was rejected. 4. initially charge sheet was filed against the revisionists under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 ipc and the revisionists were granted bail. during pendency of the case, injured died. during pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the complainant for framing charge under section 302 ipc also on the ground that the injured died as a result of injuries sustained during the incident. 5. learned trial judge, vide order dated 12.1.2009, directed framing of the charge under section 302 ipc also. order dated 12.1.2009 was challenged by the revisionists before this court by means of application u/s 482 cr.p.c. no.1239 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2009. revisionists also filed an application before the trial judge for recalling the order dated 12.1.2009, which has now been dismissed. 6. after dismissal of the application u/s 482 cr.p.c., the impugned order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the trial judge could not have been challenged by the revisionists by means of an application for recall. the application 136-kha filed by the revisionists was totally misconceived and was rightly rejected by the trial judge. 7. in these circumstances, i do not find any good ground to interfere. the earlier challenge to order dated 12.1.2009 has already failed. 8. revision is deviod of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. since the revisionists are already on bail under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 ipc, if they surrender before the magistrate concerned again under section 302 ipc and apply for fresh bail, their prayer for bail be considered by the court below expeditiously, if possible, on the same day in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.

3. This revision is directed against the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 941 of 2004 under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 IPC, whereby the application 174-Kha for recalling order dated 12.1.2009 was rejected.

4. Initially charge sheet was filed against the revisionists under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 IPC and the revisionists were granted bail. During pendency of the case, injured died. During pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the complainant for framing charge under section 302 IPC also on the ground that the injured died as a result of injuries sustained during the incident.

5. Learned trial judge, vide order dated 12.1.2009, directed framing of the charge under section 302 IPC also. Order dated 12.1.2009 was challenged by the revisionists before this Court by means of Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.1239 of 2009, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.4.2009. Revisionists also filed an application before the trial judge for recalling the order dated 12.1.2009, which has now been dismissed.

6. After dismissal of the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the trial judge could not have been challenged by the revisionists by means of an application for recall. The application 136-Kha filed by the revisionists was totally misconceived and was rightly rejected by the trial judge.

7. In these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere. The earlier challenge to order dated 12.1.2009 has already failed.

8. Revision is deviod of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

9. Since the revisionists are already on bail under sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 308, 504, 506 IPC, if they surrender before the Magistrate concerned again under section 302 IPC and apply for fresh bail, their prayer for bail be considered by the court below expeditiously, if possible, on the same day in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Ravindra Kumar vs Sachiv Basic Shiksha Board, U.P. at Allahab... Same Subject Education Same Judge S.C. Agarwal, J.