Disposed

Smt. Renu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022A227/9649/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order summoning only the husband in a dowry harassment case. The Court held that since the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy to apply under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording evidence, no ground existed to interfere at the interim stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without interfering with the impugned order summoning only the husband.

Smt. Renu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9649 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent no.1.

¶6

The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.08.2022 and further prayer to pass an order, which the Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground that complainant furnished enough evidence to show that prima facie offence under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P.Act was made out against the opposite party nos.2 to 6. However, learned trial court passed an order summoning only Bijendra Singh, husband of the complainant. The revisional court failed to appreciate the facts that prima facie offence against other members of the family of the husband, who are opposite parties, was made out. However, the revisional court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and affirmed the order of learned trial court.

¶7

I went through the impugned orders and also the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant. The revisional court seems to have relied on the judgement of the apex court for not interfering with the order of the trial court. The revisional court rightly noticed that in cases of dowry related harassment allegations are routinely made against other members of the husband. The courts below are not expected to pass order in mechanical manner unmindful of certain grounds realities.

¶8

However, in view of the forceful argument of the petitioner that she produced enough evidence showing the involvement of other opposite parties in harassment meted out to her for fulfilling the demand of dowry and misappropriation of stree dhan/gifts handed over to the complainant, it is observed that at appropriate stage, after recording of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., the complainant has remedy to move appropriate application praying the court to invoke its power under Section 319

¶9

Cr.P.C.

¶10

In view of availability of other equally efficacious remedies, I do not find any good ground to interfere at this stage. Subject to above this petition is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 16.12.2022

¶12

Asha

¶13

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.12.16 17:18:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Renu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renu v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Juvenile-X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Savitri and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Minor through Guardian and Father Shri Vinod Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Juvenile) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others