Category Archives: how to use revision to drag 498a case

FIR in year 2004 or earlier. “Revision” rejected @ HC in 2016 !! Who says delay is bad ??

As per the record the FIR was filed circa 2004 or earlier and summoning order was dated 10th June 2004…. The accused seemed to have filed for a revision stating that the magistrate has NOT applied his mind and NO personal involvement has been shown !! That “revision” is rejected in 2016 …. YES seems to have lingered for 12 years and finally rejected, meaning the case should start afresh now !!

This can’t be a typo, as the year is mentioned multiple times , it’s mentioned on the summoning order, on this revision case etc!!, and the matter is from the Allahabad HC site (directly from site) !!

However a certified copy is ordered, immediately !!

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Deputy Registrar(Copying).


Court No. – 34

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3369 of 2004

Revisionist :- Sanjay And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R. Sinha

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

  1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record.
  2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by summoning order dated 10.06.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Magistrate, Dudhi, District Sonebhadra, in Case No. 475 of 2004, under Sections 498-A, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. ; ;
  3. The impugned summoning order has been passed on a complaint made by complainant-respondent no. 2 and after recording statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Nothing has been placed on record to show that Magistrate has not applied its mind to the material available before him.
  4. The mere fact that individual role has not been assigned in complaint or there is no injury report etc. is wholly irrelevant at this stage inasmuch as from perusal of documents placed on record, i.e., statement recorded by Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that prima facie offence under Sections 498-A, 147, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is not made out. Magistrate, therefore, has rightly exercised its power. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out.
  5. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
  6. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

Order Date :- 13.5.2016


Visit for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow.


This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

CASE FROM WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting