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
4 paragraphs · 200 wordsServesh Kumar Gupta, J.—After going though short hearing and perusal of the record, it transpires that in criminal case No. 316 of 1998 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola (Uttarkashi), opposite party Nos. 2 to 12 were summoned after taking cognizance u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence u/s 323, 504 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 11.01.2002. The said order was challenged in the court of Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, who allowed the revision of opposite party and quashed the order of cognizance vide his judgment and order dated 13.05.2002.
It is this judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi which has been challenged through this revision. The judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi was never stayed in this revision with the result, the prospective accused were never summoned in the trial court. The trial proceeding is pending since 1998. In these past 13 years, in all probabilities, the trial should have been concluded, especially in the outlying court, at Purola where the pendency is very meager.
In view of the above, revision has lost the relevance. It is dismissed.
Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith.