Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2919 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.N.Yadav
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No. 129 of 2012 (State Vs. Jang Bahadur and others) and in connected Session Trial No. 296 of 2012 (State Vs. Munni Devi), by which the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge has been rejected.
3. At the outset Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that the present revision application is not maintainable, it being directed against the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the trial court, by which order, the said Court has rejected the prayer made by the prosecution. In view of the fact that the alteration of charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C. has been sought by the applicant, who is the informant. In the first place the applicant had no right to file such an application. In any case, it is submitted that a revision against the order rejecting such an application was not maintainable. In this regard reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh and another (2017) 3 SCC 347 (paragraph 7 and 8).
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application for alteration of charge had been filed by the prosecution and not by the applicant. This position has been contested by Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties to submit that such an application had been filed by the applicant and not by the prosecution.
5. Irrespective of the origin of the application filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C., the objection raised by learned AGA that no revision is maintainable against such an order has to be accepted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court as noted above.
6. Consequently, the present revision is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Lbm/-