Remanded

Priyanka v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2019A482/33602/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court set aside the lower court's order summoning the applicant to face trial for Section 304 IPC. It directed the trial court to treat the initial complaint as a private prosecution, giving the opposite party an opportunity to adduce evidence before deciding whether to summon the accused.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.12.2014 set aside; trial court directed to treat matter as private complaint, give opposite party opportunity to adduce evidence, and pass fresh order.

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33602 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Priyanka Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Awasthi,Mahadeo Singh Chandel

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Singh,Arvind Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahadeo Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant, Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 2895 of 2014 arising out of F.R. No. 44 of 2013, P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya and in Case Crime No. 150 of 2013, under Section 304 IPC as well as order dated 18.12.2014.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is erroneous. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which the trial court has summoned the accused-applicant to face trial under Section 304 IPC as a State case. He has brought to the notice of court that deceased died unnatural death in presence of the opposite party no. 2, who is father of the deceased, as per F.I.R. itself. After investigation, police had submitted final report in this case finding the prosecution case to be false as narrated in the F.I.R.. Earlier a complaint was made by the opposite party no. 2 to falsely implicate accused-applicant by filing an application under Section 156(3), which was treated as a complaint and the same was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.1.2015, order is annexed at page 40 to 46, which shows that the opposite party no. 2 was bent upon harassing the accusedapplicant. The cremation was performed of the deceased in presence of the opposite party no. 2 and yet he did not press for post-mortem to be conducted of the deceased nor did he press for panchayatnama. The opposite party no. 2 was married at an early age of about 17 years. She was staying separate from her family members, who were far away from her. There was no one at the place of incident except the deceased and accusedapplicant. It is a false version of the opposite party no. 2 that co-accused Jagroop Singh had given injection to the deceased, whereafter he developed pain in his stomach and when he was

¶9

rushed for treatment, he died, therefore, impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has argued that the occurrence took place on 22.5.2013 while he moved an application under Section 156(3) on 6.6.2013, whereon case was registered on 14.7.2013 after much effort was made by him. The co-accused Jagroop Singh had given information to the opposite party no. 2 on 22.5.2013 that the deceased Jai Prakash was seriously ill, whereon he had reached there and at that time, Jagroop Singh was giving treatment to the deceased. The deceased had complained about pain in his stomach, whereafter Jagroop Singh had injected some injection and soon after that deceased died. He has further stated that Priyanka and Jagroop Singh had illicit relation with each other. He has drawn attention to page 36 of the counter affidavit which affidavit is of Ravindra Tiwari, who is Dewar of the owner of the house in which deceased and accused-applicant used to live, who has supported the prosecution case. He has also drawn attention to the affidavit of S.M. Singh, who has also supported the prosecution case.

¶11

I have gone through the impugned order. The trial court has recorded that the informant Charan Singh has supported the version of prosecution. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has stated that the accused-applicant and co-accused Jagroop Singh had illicit relationship because of which they have eliminated his son in suspicious circumstances, the death was not natural and, therefore, there was sufficient evidence to summon the said accused to face trial under Section 304 IPC and he has rejected the final report. The above mentioned order appears to have been passed under Section 191(1)(b) as the trial court has directed it to run as a State case, which means that trial court has found sufficient evidence in the case diary to summon the accused under the above mentioned sections. The attention has been drawn from the side of accused applicant to the evidence recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and it is argued that the same does not wholely substantiate the prosecution version. The affidavits which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 cannot be taken into consideration while passing the impugned order nor does it appear that they were taken into consideration but the impugned order appears to be erroneous because the evidence to which the attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the applicant does not appear to be sufficient on the basis of which the accused could have been summoned to face trial. Since learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has stated that there are witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case and they have filed the affidavits, which are on record, I deem it proper to observe that

¶12

the trial court ought to have treated the protest petition as a complaint and, thereafter, after giving opportunity to the complaint/opposite party no. 2 to adduce evidence if the sufficient evidence was found to be there on record, it could have summoned the accused-applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2014 is set aside with a direction to the trial court to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 to adduce evidence in support of his case and thereafter pass fresh order.

¶14

With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.7.2019 A.P. Pandey

Priyanka v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi @ Savitri Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Up and Another

Sahdev Mukherjee Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Shakeel Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dr. Kushal Pal Deshwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tanveer Fatima and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another