The applicant challenged the discharge order in a matrimonial death case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the FIR prima facie proved death within four years of marriage with dowry demand allegations, contrary to the suicide note claim, dismissing the application.
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. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17547 of 2021
Applicant :- Abhishek Paliwal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri R.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shivam Saxena, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 21.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No.475 of 2018 (State v. Abhishek Paliwal & Ors.) (arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 304-B, IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act-1961, Police Station-Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
It is pertinent to note that learned lower court while rejecting the application of the applicants relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018, Rajbeer Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 (55) ACC 318 wherein it was observed that the standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 Cr.P.C. At that stage, the Court is not to 'see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
Learned lower court further also relied upon Sushil Ansal v. State 2002 C.R.L.J. 1369 and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Panjabi Adv. v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1962 and observed that order of discharge under Section 227
Cr.P.C. would be warranted only in those cases where the court is satisfied that there are no chance of conviction of an accused and the trial would be an exercise is futility.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased committed suicide due to depression and the cause of death was hanging. Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention of the Court to the document annexed at page Nos.70-75 of the application and submitted that the deceased committed suicide after writing the suicide note. It is further submitted that the death was caused due to hanging which is evident from the photocopy of the post-mortem report annexed at page No.50 of the application. It is further submitted that learned lower court has illegally rejected the application of the applicants and submitted that the order is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, vehemently, opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and stated that from the version of F.I.R, it is prima facie proved that she died within four years of marriage due to hanging. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that before the death, the applicants were demanding dowry. It is further submitted that it is evident from the face of record, that unnatural death occurred within four years of marriage. It is further submitted that in the document annexed at page Nos.72-75 of the application, she has nowhere revealed her intention of commit suicide and, therefore, the said document as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants cannot be termed as a 'suicide note'.
I have gone through the file.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. and other material documents available on record, it is evident that unnatural death occurred within four years of her marriage. The version of F.I.R. also reveals that she was ill-treated and dowry demand was also made. The document relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants annexed at page Nos.72-75 of the application cannot be termed as the 'suicide note'.
In above circumstance, I do not find any cogent reason to interfere in the impugned order.
The application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.4.2022 Jyotsana
Digitally signed by JYOTSANA SINGH Date: 2022.04.07 17:03:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the discharge application.
Whether the evidence on record prima facie establishes guilt or suspicion sufficient for trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar v. Ramesh SinghReferred¶8
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 · Who else cites this
Rajbeer Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.Referred¶8
Rajbeer Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 (55) ACC 318
Sushil Ansal v. StateReferred¶9
Sushil Ansal v. State 2002 C.R.L.J. 1369
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Panjabi Adv. v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors.Referred¶9
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Panjabi Adv. v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1962 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhishek Paliwal
Mohd. Aslam
Jyotsana Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
