RAHUL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the orders dated 24.01.2014 and 01.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Case No.114 of 2014 (State Vs. Kushal Pal and others) in Case Crime No.614 of 2013 u/s 392 I.P.C. relating to Police Station-Nauchandi, District-Meerut whereby the charge u/s 392 I.P.C. has been framed against the accused-revisionist and the subsequent application seeking discharge was rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

(3.) Ordinarily this Court would have issued notice to private opposite party No.2 who is the first informant and would have decided the matter after hearing him as he has been impleaded in the array of parties. But in that event the proceedings of the lower court had to be stayed. Such a course would have been definitely detrimental to the interest of the prosecution because in the wake of the staggering load of pending cases there was scarcely any possibility for this revision to be heard in a measurable distance of time. Apart from this, this is a State case where the prime prosecutor is the State itself who was represented by its counsel in the court. As the order impugned was also reflecting a palpable illegality this Court deemed it proper to proceed and decide the matter on the basis of the record after hearing the learned A.G.A.