Reserved
Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3425 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ram Lakhan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Pandey,Prem Shankar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
The present revision has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 7.8.2019 passed by learned third Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in complaint case no. 2397 of 2018, under section 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, P.S. Kerakat, District Jaunpur.
Even though learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has pressed the prayer made in the revision with the contention that a number of injuries were received, but the Court has perused the injury report, copy of which has been annexed with the instant revision, which shows that the injuries are merely complaints of pain and there are no other injuries. Even though in his statement recorded under section 202 CrPC, nevertheless the injury report belies the contention of the complainant.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer as made in the revision with the contention that the court concerned while passing the order impugned, by means of which the complaint filed by the revisionist has been rejected, has given cogent reasons. The court concerned while passing order impugned has observed herein as under:
“परिरिवाद तथा परिरिवादी के ब्यान धारिा 200 दं0 प 0 सं0 के अवलोकन से िविदत है िक िवशाल के परिरिवारि तथा िवपरक्षीगण के खेत के बटँवारिे को लेकरि िववाद ह। परिरिवादी क ब्यान से पतीत होता है िक उसके द्वारिा िवपरक्षीगण पररि उक्त खेत के बटँवारिे के िववाद मे दबाव बनाने की मंसा से तथ्यों को बढ़ा-
चढ़ाकरि मामले को आपररिािधक रिग पदान करिते हुए पस्तुत परिरिवाद दायरि िकया गया है। परिरिवादी द्वारिा पस्तुत साक्षीगण परी0 डब्लू0 1 िवशाल व परी0 डब्लू0 2 सुनील भी तथ्यों को बढ़ा-चढ़ाकरि बयान देने पतीत हो रिहे ह। परत्रावली पररि उपरलब्ध साक्ष्य के आधारि पररि िवपरक्षीगण को िकसी अपररिाध हेतु तलब िकया जाना न्यायोिचत नहीं होगा।”
Further, the court below while passing the order impugned has relied upon the law rendered in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Others; (1998) 5 SCC 749.
I have perused the impugned order which shows that the court below has given cogent reasons while passing the order impugned and no illegality or perversity could be attributed to the findings as recorded therein.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
Accordingly, the instant revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Kuldeep