SASHIKANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-339
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 28,2017

Sashikant Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Om Prakash, J. - (1.) The present application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No. 34 of 2017 including the order dated 4.4.2017 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Hathras, proceedings of criminal revision no. 63 of 2017 including the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hathras and the order dated 15.3.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Criminal Misc. Case No. 163/12 of 2017 (Jitendra Kumar vs. Shashi Kant Sharma and others). Further prayer has been made to stay the proceedings of aforesaid criminal revision.
(2.) As per the averments made in the application, facts of the case, in nutshell, are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 8.2.2017 bearing case crime no. 0018 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 427 IPC at P.S. Sahpau for the offence committed on the same date at Kokanda Mod, Jalesar Road, Manikpur. Applicant is the eye witness of the said incident. Since the accused persons named in the said F.I.R. were extending threat to the first informant and the witnesses of the said incident, the informant preferred a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017 before this Court, which has been disposed of vide order dated 19.5.2017 with certain directions. It further appears that an application dated 23.2.2017 u/s 156(3) CrPC was moved by one Jitendra Singh in regard to the incident dated 8.2.2017, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 163/12 of 2017 and vide order dated 15.3.2017, the Magistrate concerned treated the said application as complaint. Aggrieved with the said order, the opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision before the revisional court and vide order dated 4.4.2017, the said criminal revision was directed to be registered as Misc. Case, hence this application.
(3.) Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri U.P. Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.