Dismissed

Nikhat Khan @ Naz and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022CRLR/3610/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Revision dismissed against conviction of sister-in-law, mother-in-law, and father-in-law under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act for matrimonial harassment and dowry demand, affirming lower courts' findings of guilt.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; remaining fine to be deposited; bail cancelled; accused to go into custody to serve sentence.

Nikhat Khan @ Naz and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3610 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nikhat Khan @ Naz And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- C.K.Parekh,Kumar Ankit Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Anwer Jamal

¶2

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶3

Heard learned Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Mayank Awasthi and Madnesh Prasad Singh, State Law Officer and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶4

The facts giving rise to the instant revision are that the opposite party no.2 was married with the accused (Subhan Khan) according to Muslim rites and rituals. In the marriage, sufficient quantum of dowry such as jewellery of gold and silver, precious clothes, utensils, electronics items as well as Rs. 15,000/- cash were given but her in-laws were not happy with the quantum of dowry and on the day of marriage itself, demand of Rs. 1 lacs and a motor cycle was made but somehow she was taken to her matrimonial house. The revisionist no.1-Nikhat Khan alias Naaz-sister-in-law (Nanad), revisionist no.2-Smt. Hashibunisha-mother-in-law, revisionist no.3-Ahmad Raza alias Numani-father-in-law, husband-Subhan Khan and brother-inlaw (Nandoi) Viccky alias Imran started harassing and tormenting her for the fulfilment of the aforesaid additional dowry on account of which, her mother and respectable persons tried to convince her in-laws but they did not agree. She was beaten by her in-laws, for which, she also sent an application to the Police Station Mughal Sarai due to which, her in-laws apologised their mistakes which was also reduced in writing on 05.12.2009 in the police station. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 was taken to her matrimonial house but after a lapse of considerable time, again the aforesaid accused persons started making dowry demand and due to non-fulfilment of the same, they had again beaten her. And thus, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and pursuant to the order passed on the aforesaid application, a first information report was lodged in Case Crime No. 292 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was entrusted for investigation, and the same culminated in submission of charge sheet dated 18.10.2011 under Sections 498A, 323/149, 504, 506 (2), 406 I.P.C.against all the accused persons.

¶5

The case was thereafter registered as Criminal Case No. 77 of 2011 (State Vs. Subhan Khan and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 292 of 2010 under Sections 498A, 323/149, 504, 506 (2) I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mughal Sarai, District Chandauli. The trial commenced in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in which, vide order dated 18.10.2011, charges were framed against the revisionists and others under Sections 498A, 323/149. 504 506 (2), 406 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution in support of its case got examined as many as seven witnesses namely, P.W.1 Shabana Begum, P.W.2. Haseemuddin, P.W.3 Fareed Ahmad, P.W.4 Kaushar, P.W.5 S.I. Duniya Singh, P.W.6 Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, P.W.7 S.I. Viven Kumar Srivastava and produced as a documentary evidence photo copy of the compromise dated 02.12.2021 exhibit-Ka-1, photocopy of the application given to Superintendent of Police, Chandauli exhibit Ka-2, photocopy of the postal receipt exhibit Ka-3, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. exhibkit Ka-4, photocopy of the Nikahmana Exhibit Ka-5, Chick F.I.R. exhibit Ka-6, Qayami Rapat exhibit Ka-7, Naksha Nazari exhibit Ka-8, charge sheet exhibit Ka-9. Defence in support of their case got examined D.W.1 Imran and D.W. 2 Viccky alias Imran and as a documentary evidence produced copy of the plaint of case no. 341/2015 (Nikhat Khanam Vs. Shekh Moinuddin) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Mediation Centre. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby convicted and sentenced the revisionist no.1-Nikhat Khan alias Naaz-sister-in-law (Nanad), revisionist no.2-Smt. Hashibunisha-mother-in-law, revisionist no.3-Ahmad Raza alais Numani-father-in-law under Section 498A I.P.C. to undergo R.I. of 2 1/2 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default in payment of fine to further undergo R.I. of ten days, under Sections 323/149 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default in payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of seven days, under Section 406 I.P.C., to undergo imprisonment of 2 1/2 years along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default in payment of fine to further undergo for R.I. of seven days, under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and to undergo imprisonment of one year along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for rigorous imprisonment of ten days, vide Judgement and order dated 03.03.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, the revisionist preferred Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2017 (Subhan Vs. State of U.P. and another) before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli vide Judgement and order dated 03.10.2018

¶6

had dismissed the same, which Judgement and orders are impugned in the present revision.

¶7

Learned Counsel for revisionists submits that the revisionists are sister-in-law (Nand), mother-in-law and father-in -law of the opposite party no.2 and that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solenised with Subhan Khan, which was a love marriage and thus, there was no question of demand of dowry or additional dowry. He further submits that in fact, the informant does not want to live with the revisionists as well as with the husband and with a malafide intention she was residing separately, thereafter implicated the revisionists in the instant case. He further submits that the dispute between the revisionists and the informant was settled at the concerned police station, where there was not even a whisper about allegation of demand of dowry. He next submits that the coaccused Viccky alias Imran (Nandoi) has no concern with the affairs of the informant and revisionists, as he has divorced his wife (Nanad of the opposite party no.2) Nikhat alias Naaz in the year 2010, thereafter she had solemnsied second marriage. It is then submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality and has recorded perverse findings while passing the impugned judgement and order of conviction. He next submits that the appellate Court too without considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants/revisionists affirmed the judgement and order of conviction. Learned counsel has next argued that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and without considering the factual and legal aspects of the matter, passed the Judgement and order of conviction, which has been wrongly affirmed by the appellate Court and thus the same are liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have argued that although the marriage was love marriage between the revisionists and the opposite party No.2 but on the day of marriage, the demand of dowry was raised by the revisionists and his family members, somehow the same was got settled and the opposite party NO.2 taken to matrimonial house. Later on, the demand was continued and she was physically and mentally tortured for the additional demand of dowry and when the same could not be fulfilled, she was ousted from her matrimonial house, which resulted into lodging of the F.I.R. He further submits that the learned trial Court after considering the evidence adduced before it, has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-revisionists, which Judgement and order was rightly upheld by the learned revisional Court and thus the impugned Judgement and orders are perfectly legal, just and proper, which calls for no

¶9

interference by this Court.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned Judgement and orders as well as Lower Court record.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case which has not been controverted by the defence. Even D.W. 2 Viccky alias Imran had admitted in his statement that he was a witness to the marriage between the revisionists and the opposite party No.2. He further stated that on the day of marriage, the dispute with regard to demand of dowry did arise but on the intervention of respectable person, the same was got settled, however the demand continued, which itself shows that offence under the charged Sections is made out against the revisionists.

¶12

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-revisionists on the strength of trustworthy evidence and that the learned trial Court after considering all four corners, has recorded specific findings which has rightly culminated in conviction of the accused-revisionists, which Judgement and order has been upheld by the learned appellate Court in correct perspective. Taking the cumulative effect of evidence, in my considered view, the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused-revisionists under the charged Sections.

¶13

The revision has no substance and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that half of the amount has already been deposited by the revisionists.

¶15

In case such amount has already been deposited, the remaining half of the amount of fine shall be deposited by the revisionists within a period of one month from today before concerned Court below.

¶16

The revisionists are stated to be on bail. Their bail is cancelled and sureties are discharged and they shall be taken into custody forthwith for serving the remaining sentence.

¶17

Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.

¶18

Office is directed to transmit the record of trial Court as well as copy of the judgement to the Court below.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.4.2022/S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.05.10 13:32:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nikhat Khan @ Naz and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhat Khan @ Naz and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay Lal Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wahid Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrabhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anjali Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another