NEELAM VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria in Misc. Case No. 1427 of 2016, whereby application filed by applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected as well as for quashing the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deoria in criminal revision no. 232/2017, whereby revision filed against the order dated 20.11.2017 has also been dismissed.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has submitted an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against opposite party nos. 2 to 19, making several allegations, which constitute prima facie a cognizable offence, but learned trial court has not considered the entire facts and law in correct perspective and the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.11.2017 without assigning appropriate reasons. There were allegations against opposite party nos. 2 to 19, which includes some police officials, that they have tried to take illegal possession over land of applicant and that in the alleged incident, applicant has sustained injuries. Being aggrieved against the order dated 20.11.2017, applicant has preferred a criminal revision, but it was also dismissed without considering relevant facts and law by impugned order dated 10.07.2019. Applicant has also filed an application before the lower revisional court that opposite party, namely, Rahul Verma and Masoor Alam constable are not present but that application was rejected by Session Court. Learned revisional court has made false allegations in order-sheet that despite repeated calls revisionist or her counsel was not present. Learned revisional court has dismissed the revision mainly on the ground that injury nos. 2 to 5 are simple in nature and regarding injury no. 1 there was no supplementary report and thus, all injuries were simple in nature. It was submitted that revisional court has not considered the case of the applicant and passed an ex-parte order though counsel for the applicant has appeared before the court concerned. It was further argued that both the impugned orders are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.