AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

AJAY KUMAR @ BITTU & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

The High Court erred in dismissing the Criminal Revision challenging the summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of subsequent order dated 18.09.2019 under Section 446 Cr.P.C.; the correctness and validity of the order dated 17.08.2019 summoning appellants must be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with law, applying the settled test for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (discretionary, extra-ordinary, more than prima facie but short of satisfaction for conviction).

Parties
Appellant: Ajay Kumar @ Bittu; Appellant: Jyoti; Respondent: State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Dismissal of Criminal Revision by High Court Dated 27.09.2019
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.09.2019 set aside; Criminal Revision to be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with law.
Legal Topics
Section 319 Cr.p.c., Section 446 Cr.p.c., Summoning Additional Accused, Revisional Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Section 319 Cr.p.c. Section 446 Cr.p.c. Summoning Additional Accused Revisional Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ajay Kumar @ Bittu

Appellant

Jyoti

Appellant

State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Dismissal of Criminal Revision by High Court Dated 27.09.2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing Criminal Revision challenging summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of subsequent proceedings (order dated 18.09.2019)
  2. 2 What is the test and scope for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether appellant No.1 was a juvenile at the date of the incident and whether that ground requires consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in dismissing the Criminal Revision challenging the summons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of subsequent order dated 18.09.2019 under Section 446 Cr.P.C.; the correctness and validity of the order dated 17.08.2019 summoning appellants must be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with law, applying the settled test for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (discretionary, extra-ordinary, more than prima facie but short of satisfaction for conviction).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 27.09.2019 set aside; Criminal Revision to be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with law.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment dated 27.09.2019 of the High Court set aside
  • Criminal Revision of the appellants to be considered afresh by the High Court in accordance with law