Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3425 of 2018 Revisionist :- Gulab Chand Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Mishra,Lok Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Shri Lok Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 1.9.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in complaint Case No. 1302 of 2017 (Gulab Chandra Gupta versus Chandrama Pasad and others), under Sections 24, 34, 183, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Aurai, District Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that his complaint has been wrongly and illegally rejected despite the court below itself of the view that offence of criminal trespass has been made out against the private respondents.
Learned AGA has opposed the above arguments and supported the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that complaint has been rejected on two grounds. In respect of the respondents who are government servant, complaint was rejected on the ground of necessary of sanction. While complaint against the private respondents have been rejected on the ground that no notice under Section 441 IPC has been served to constitute the offence under Section 447 IPC against the private respondents.
In view of above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. However, revisionist may file fresh complaint after removing the defects i.e. obtaining sanction of prosecution against the respondents who are government servant and after serving notice under Section 441 IPC against the private respondents, if advised to do so.
With the above observation, this revision is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Ravi Prakash