A criminal revision was filed against an order rejecting a discharge application. The High Court held that the FIR and investigation disclosed a prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC, and 3/4 D.P. Act, finding no illegality in the trial court's order.
The revision filed by the accused was dismissed.
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. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3075 of 2021
Revisionist :- Chandan Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vindeshwari Prasad,Saroj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Vindeshwari Prasad learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the records of the case.
The present revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the impugned order dated 21.9.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Mirzapur passed in Sessions Trial No. 191 of 2019 (State Vs. Chandan Yadav and others) arising out of case crime No. 189 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Vindhyanchal, District Mirzapur by which learned trial court rejected the discharge application of the revisionists.
The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 6.7.2019, opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR against the revisionist and two others under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act in respect of death of her daughter, namely, Sanjau Yadav. As per allegation deceased-Sanju Yadav wife of Revisionist No. 1 Chandan Yadav died within seven years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances and there was demand of dowry. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against revisionists under Sections 498A, 304 B IPC and 3/4 D.P.Act.
Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the entire allegation made against the revisionist in respect of demand of dowry are not only false but, it prima facie, appears to be improbable and as far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, he resided in Bombay and having no concern with the alleged demand of dowry. Revisionist Nos. 2 and 3 are his old and infirm parents and they have also no concern with the alleged demand of dowry. Post mortem report further reveals that the deceased committed suicide, therefore, no charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act are made out against the revisionists.
Learned AGA contended that FIR as well as statements recorded during investigation discloses, prima facie, offence against the revisionists under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and after perusal of the entire evidence on record, learned trial court rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionists.
I have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records of the case.
Admittedly, revisionists are family members of the deceased-Sanju Yadav who died under abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and also there was a demand of dowry. Perusal of the FIR and the statement recorded during investigation reveals that prima facie, against the revisionists offence under Sections 498A 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, is made out.
In the light of the above, in my considered view, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.9.2021, hence, the present revision filed on behalf of the revisionists stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Ankita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether discharge application should have been allowed given the prima facie evidence from FIR and investigation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Chandan Yadav And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Sameer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
