MUKESH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Nayan Singh and Sri Ritukar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

(2.) Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in all the above captioned revisions and as such, all the matters has ripe for final submissions to be adjudicated on merits.

(3.) Coincidentally, all the aforesaid three revisionists, are assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 3/3/2022 through their respective revisions mentioned above whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Hapur, by three different orders of the same date i.e 3/3/2022, have rejected all the discharge applications of the revisionists under sec. 227 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 19 of 2020 (State v. Manju Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 567 of 2018, under Sec. 498-A, 504, 506, 307 and 120-B IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur.