CHAND PATRAKAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri L.D. Rajbhar, who appears for the opposite party no.1.

(2.) This is a revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dtd. 13/10/2021 passed by Special Judge (P.C.Act) Court No.2/Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Special Case No. 3 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2016 under Sec. 8/9 Prevention of Corruption Act (State Vs Chand Patrakar and another), P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha by which the court below has rejected the application preferred by the revisionist under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Briefly stated facts are that an FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionists, who are two in numbers, on 10/4/2016 before the P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha being Case Crime No.154 of 2016 with an allegation that against the opposite party no.2 and their relatives, a case relating to dowry was lodged and which was under investigation by C.O. Hasanpur and about 7 to 8 days prior to the lodging of the present FIR one Latif (Milkman) had recommended the name of the revisionist and a meeting also arranged with them wherein the issue with regard to the expunging the name of the opposite party no.2 and her daughters was discussed in lieu of payment of certain amounts. A demand of Rs.1,00,000.00 was raised by the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 thereafter pledged her jewellery and paid an amount of Rs.30,000.00 to the revisionist and an amount of Rs.70,000.00 was balance which was to be paid subsequently. However, the proceedings went against the opposite party no.2 and her family despite the fact according to the opposite party no.2, she had made the payment for expunging away her name from the criminal proceedings as nothing was done by the revisionist, so above noted FIR was lodged.