Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1174 of 2020
Revisionist :- Dhananjay Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2020 In this case the office has reported that the limitation expires on 22.04.2020. This revision has been presented on 15.12.2020. In accordance with the directions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, In Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation dated 23.03.2020, limitation in all cases where it is expiring with effect from 15th March, 2020 stands extended until further orders. In view of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 14.12.2020 with regard to the delay, stands set aside and this revision is treated to be within limitation. The delay condonation application is consigned to record.
Order on the Criminal Revision By the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial no.171 of 2019, State vs. Dhananjay Mishra (arising out of Case Crime no.164 of 2018), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur has proceeded to frame charges against the revisionist, under Section 308 IPC amongst others.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist says that the said order is bad because there are injuries sustained in the incident by the revisionist, as also by others on his side that are also serious. He says that the charges in the cross-case have been framed under Sections 325, 504, 506 IPC, but not under Section 308 IPC or even under Section 325 IPC.
The fact that appropriate charges have not been framed in the cross-case, where the revisionist and his side are the victim, would not vitiate the charge(s) framed here. This Court has looked into the supplementary injury report placed at page no.43 of the paper book. That injury shows that Satya Prakash Mishra, who is the victim in the case against the revisionist, sustained a compound fracture of head on the left side and it has been opined to dangerous for life.
In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any flaw or illegality with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
This Revision, accordingly, fails and is dismissed summarily.
It is, however, open to the revisionist to make an appropriate application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. at the appropriate stage, if evidence to that effect is forthcoming at any stage of the trial.
Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Anoop