Km. Shobha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

Km. Shobha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.05.2012 summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No.33 of 2011 suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

No legal infirmity in the impugned summoning order dated 23.05.2012 was pointed out; accordingly, no interference was warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing the impugned order was refused, and the interim order, if any, stood vacated.

Key takeaways

No specific direction needed to be issued on the bail prayer: relying on the guidelines already laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil, the court concerned is expected to take those guidelines into consideration when dealing with bail, without fettering its discretion or the statutory provisions governing grant of bail.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Gautam Chowdhary, J.) disposed of Criminal Revision No. 1863 of 2012 filed by Km. Shobha Devi against the order dated 23.05.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, District Fatehpur in S.T. No.33 of 2011 (State Vs. Ram Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2010, Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, whereby she was summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sections 498A, 328, 306, 323, 504 I.P.C. The Court held that no legal infirmity in the impugned order was pointed out warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction, refused the prayer for quashing, and vacated the interim order, if any. On the revisionist's submission that she had not been arrested and coercive processes were apprehended, the Court declined to issue any specific direction on her bail prayer, noting that the guidelines already laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) were expected to be taken into consideration by the court concerned. Order date: 6.9.2022.

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1863 of 2012

Revisionist :- Km. Shobha Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Devesh Kr.Gupta

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

This present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, District Fatehpur in S.T. No.33 of 2011 (State Vs. Ram Prakash and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2010,whereby revisionist has been summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Sections 498A, 328, 306, 323, 504 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any legal infirmity in the order which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.

Interim order, if any stands vacated.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has so far not been arrested in the above case and the police is seeking to arrest the revisionist and there may be coercive processes issued against the revisionist by the court concerned therefore, some direction may be issued to the court concerned for consideration of the bail prayer of the revisionist.

As the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific direction

need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex court.

Office is directed to communicate a copy of order to the concerned Court below forthwith.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed off.

Order Date :- 6.9.2022

S.Ali

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.09.07 16:46:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad