SAGIR AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurag Verma, learned AG.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dtd. 11/4/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur in Case S.T. No.772/2009, State versus Mainul Haq and others,arising out of Case Crime No.534/2009, Under sec. 302, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Khairabad, District-Sitapur, summoning the revisionist as accused under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sec. 302/120-B I.P.C. Further prayer has been made that the proceeding of the case may be stayed during the pendency of the present revision.

(3.) The complainant had moved an application on 11/4/2012 to summon the accused-revisionist in proceedings under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. In the said application, the complainant submitted that the revisionist was named in the F.I.R. In the complaint, it is also alleged that there was dispute of land property in between Azra Rizvi and Sagir Ahmad(revisionist) and her husband was threatened by the revisionist. It is further alleged in the application that in her cross examination before the trial court, she stated that when her husband went out from her house, she rang her husband after twenty minutes, who told her that Azra Rizvi, Sagir, Mainul Haq and 2-4 other persons were sitting with him. She further stated that it was the last seen evidence and on the basis of the said happening, the F.I.R. was lodged, but the police did not file chargesheet against the accused. It is further stated that the complainant (P.W. 1) and P.W.3-Misbahul Hasan have been cross examined and during the cross examination, P.W. 1 and P.W.-3 have specifically named the accused-revisionist. Therefore, he should be summoned and trial should be done.