AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 261 wordsD.Dash, J
This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement (virtual/physical) mode.
The Petitioners, by filing this Revision, have called in question the legality and propriety of an order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned SDJM, (Sadar), Cuttack in G.R. Case No.1951 of 2019. These Petitioners, who are the husband and sister-in-law of the victim, have been arraigned as accused persons in the above noted case running for commission of offence under section 498-A/323/420/34 of the IPC read with section 4 of DP Act.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as the informant.
Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned order being perused, it is seen that the charge in the case was framed on 01.09.2021 and therefore while passing the order on 28.09.2021, the Trial Court has noted as under:-
“Here in this case, only after consideration of the charge sheet along with the connected documents including the statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C., the charge has been framed against the accused persons. Hence, as charge has already been framed, the above named accused persons cannot be discharged”.
With the above, this Court finds that the Trial Court has committed no such illegality or impropriety so as to warrant interference in excise of the revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Revision stands dismissed.
The interim order dated 24.01.2022 does no more survive. The Trial Court is directed to take all such effective steps as provided in law for conclusion of the trial as expeditiously as possible.
…………………………