Dismissed

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023/631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the trial court's rejection of a discharge application in a bigamy case. The Court held that prima facie evidence existed for framing charges under IPC Section 494 and upheld the summoning of accused.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; revisionist directed to appear before trial court within 15 days.

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46909

¶2

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 631 of 2021 Revisionist :- Dhruv Bharti And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr.

¶3

Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Husain Abbas,Irshad Ali,Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Present criminal revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sitapur, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionists has been rejected in Complaint Case No.849 of 2009 (Smt. Archana Vs. Dhruv Bharti and Others).

¶7

It is submitted that opposite party no.2/complainant is the wife of revisionist no.1. Some dispute arose between opposite party no.2 and revisionist no.1, due to which the opposite party no.2 has lodged Criminal Complaint Case No.849 of 2009, under sections 494, 109, 120-B, IPC, against the revisionists with the allegation that revisionist no.1 married with Smt. Vineeta (revisionist no.6) during the life time of the complainant/opposite party no.2, who is legally wedded wife of revisionist no.1. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 02.01.2010 had summoned the revisionists, but the said order was set-aside in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Sitapur, with the direction to concerned Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. Thereafter, the statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

¶8

and the revisionists were summoned in the aforesaid case. It is submitted that revisionist no.6, Smt. Vineeta Devi is the legally wedded wife of Kamlesh Kumar, the first cousin of revisionist no.1. It is further submitted that the witnesses who were produced by the complainant/opposite party no.2 under sections 202 Cr.P.C. have filed their notarial affidavits alongwith the petition under section 482/378/407 No.6515 of 2013 moved by the revisionists before this Court, stating that persons produced as witnesses have been impersonated by interested persons, which are produced by complainant. This Court passed the order dated 25.02.2020, in petition filed under section 482/378/407 No.6515 of 2013, directed the petitioners/revisionists to file an application in conformity with the provisions of Cr.P.C., within a period of fifteen days through counsel and the trial court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of forty five days.

¶9

In compliance of the order dated 25.02.2020 passed by this Court revisionists moved discharge application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sitapur, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 17.02.2021. It is submitted that the order of trial court is bad in the eye of law and liable to be set-aside.

¶10

On the contrary learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State have opposed the aforesaid contentions made by learned counsel for the revisionists and submitted that revisionist was summoned on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The revisionist no.1 performed marriage with revisionist no.6 in the life time of his first wife i.e. opposite party no.2, without seeking divorce from her, therefore, case under Section 494 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist no.1 Dhruv Bharti and against the other revisionists,

¶11

offence of section 109 and 120-B IPC is made out, as such the application of revisionist has rightly been rejected by the trial court. Hence the order passed by the trial court is liable to be upheld.

¶12

I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

It transpires from the record that complainant produced the witnesses Pandi Balram Bajpai, Krishna Kumari, Arjun, Ashiq Ali, as P.W.-2 to P.W.-4, under section 202 Cr.P.C., respectively and examined herself also as P.W.-1, under section 200 Cr.P.C. Both the courts below prima-facie found substance of second marriage of revisionist no.1 with revision no.6, during the life time of complainant/opposite party no.2 without seeking divorce from her.

¶14

It is also evident that from record that all the evidences which are said to have produced by the complainant were considered by this Court in the petition under section 482/378/407 No.6515 of 2013, moved by the revisionists, therefore, there was no occasion to file sworn affidavits of the witnesses before the trial court. Under the direction of revisional court in Criminal Revision No.44 of 2010, complainant produced P.W.-3 Arjun, P.W.-4 Ashiq Ali, P.W.-6 Balram, under section 202 Cr.P.C. and complainant himself, under section 200 Cr.P.C. After rehearing of the case, there was prima-facie evidence for framing of the charge against the revisionist No.1 Dhruv Bharti under section 494 IPC and against remaining revisionist under sections 109 and 120-B IPC. Hon'ble Apex Court in "Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retired) Vs. Hussain Mohd. Sattaf and Other, 2023 Live Law SC 462", "State of Rajstahan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191", and "State of Karnatka Vs. M.R. Heeramal, (2019) 7 SCC 515", held that "truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of material

¶15

produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the court has to satisfy that a prima-facie case is made out against accused persons. Interference of the court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of the process of the court".

¶16

Learned trial court opined that prima-facie case has been found against the revisionist and they have been summoned to be tried in the case. There is no intervening evidence to the effect that since after summoning of the accused there is change in the factual circumstances. The authenticacy and veracity of witnesses can be considered during trial. It cannot be said that there is no evidence at all at this stage for framing of the charge. From the above discussions, it is clear that there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by trial court, hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed .

¶18

The revisionist is directed to appear before the trial court within 15 days from today.

¶19

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 VKG

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhruv Bharti and Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohini Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home, Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar Singh (According to Prosecution Jitendra Kumar, Ward Boy) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shiv Prakash @ Nanhakke Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dost Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Juvenile 'X' Thru. His Father Shri Narendra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Aditya Kumar @ Aditya Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another