Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4185 of 2018 Revisionist :- Vijay Raghav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 8.10.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC-I, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2017 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the order dated 30.11.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.80 of 2014 (Smt. Neeraj Vs. Vijay Raghav and others) under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Gulawathi, District Bulandshahr.
The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that no offence against the revisionist is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and submits that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist relates to disputed questions of fact. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pretrial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the proceedings against the revisionist arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
In view of above, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the courts below, which may warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Order Date : - 29.11.2018 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]