The High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking quashing of an order summoning accused Atiq and others for dowry harassment under Section 498A IPC. Finding no illegality in the Magistrate's action based on recorded evidence, the revision was rejected absent the revisionist's appearance.
The criminal revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 457 of 2011
Revisionist :- Atiq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anil Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to argue the case.
This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 28.10.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IIIrd, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 4141/2010 (Noorjahan Vs. Atiq and others), whereby revisionist Atiq and other accused Khalid, Rehana, Khalda and Hussan Bano were summoned for offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
As per complaint version, Smt. Noorjahan was married with accused Atiq on 13.05.2008. After her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and harassed by revisionist and other accused for demand of dowry.
On the basis of statement of complainant Noorjahan under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witnesses Alamgir and Naveen under Section 202 Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order, which is based on evidence and not perverse.
I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court.
In the result, instant criminal revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 10.5.2018 Sharad/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Magistrate committed any illegality in summoning the accused based on evidence obtained under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned order summoning accused for acts under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Act is perverse.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of U.P.
Khalid
Rehana
Khalda
Hussan Bano
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
