VINOD SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the F. I. R. was lodged on 09. 01. 2001 by the opposite party no. 2 against unknown persons with the allegations that on 08. 01. 2001 his father was coming from his school and when he reached at village Bheem Nagar, then one boy has indicated him to stop and thereafter 8-10 persons armed with firearm came and kidnapped him forcibly and took him in the forest. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 08. 03. 2002. On 06. 03. 2003 kidnappee moved application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. before the court concerned in which allegation has been made against the revisionists. In pursuance of the statement of the kidnappee, revisionists have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 17. 02. 2004. On 24.10.2019 the revisionists have moved application under Section 227 Cr. P. C. for discharging them but the court concerned had rejected their discharge application on 03.10.2019. The facts and grounds taken by the revisionists have not been taken into consideration by the court below while passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is perverse and liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State as well as have gone through the records of the present application along with the impugned order.