The court allowed a writ petition to quash orders of summoning and revision in a dowry harassment case, noting forged allegations and the subsequent reconciliation between the married couple.
The orders dated 5.6.2007 and 9.8.2007 passed in the complaint case and revision respectively are set aside and the present petition is allowed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191536
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17454 of 2007
Petitioner :- Suraj Pal Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimlendu Tripathi,Bipin Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Uday Singh Patel
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Short counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for respondent is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present petition filed by the petitioners with prayer to quash the impugned order dated 9.8.2007 passed by District & Sessions judge, Budaun in Criminal Revision No. 247 of 2007 and order dated 5.6.2007 passed by Judicial MagistrateI, Budaun in Complaint Case No. 1343 of 2006 and further to quash the whole proceedings of the case.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 both were husband and wife and other petitioners are inmates of respondent no. 2. There was allegation of demand of dowry and harassment against the petitioners by respondent no. 2 who was wife of petitioner no. 1. A complaint was filed with false allegation by the wife of the petitioner no. 1 and statement of the complainant and his two near relatives were recorded by the learned court and on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the statements recorded by the learned court, summoning order was passed vide order dated 5.6.2007 relying the baled statements of the complainant and other witnesses that inspire no confidence. Even the learned revisional court also did not consider all these facts and material on record but dismissed the revision filed against the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Further submitted that there was mutual dispute between husband and wife and later on, it was settled between both of them. Now they are living together. They have four issues from the wedlock and there is no any dispute at all regarding this, joint affidavit (petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2) of husband and wife have been filed through short counter affidavit. It is also submitted that the order passed by the learned court shows that judicial mind was not applied but it was passed in routine manner, therefore, it was liable to be set aside along with the order passed by the learned revisional court.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also agreed that on account of mutual dispute
that complaint was filed with exaggerated allegation against petitioner no. 1 and other members of his family, later on both of them started living together and now they have four children from the wedlock and no any dispute remains between both of them.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, material on record including order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 5.6.2007 and order passed by learned court of Sessions dated 9.8.2007, it appears that there were allegations regarding demand of dowry, marpeet and harassment on the part of respondent no. 2 against the petitioner no. 1 and other inmates of his family. It was also alleged that on 27.6.2006 at about 11 a.m. the father, brother and uncle of the respondent no.2 were present in her sasural who went there in relation to her bidai . When she was cooking food in the kitchen mother-in-law, father-in-law, devar and nanad started making demand of dowry and one motorcycle which was denied by her inmates as a result they started beating, in which her husband poured kerosene oil on her, her father-in-law caught hold of her hands, devar caught hold of her legs, her nanad lit matchstick and dadiya sasur instigated to kill her by setting her at fire. At this interference was made by her inmates as a result her life was rescued. During the course of recording her statements and her inmates they reiterated the version in the similar way but nothing was there on record to show that such incident was committed by the petitioner No. 1 or other members of his family. There was no any other material on record to show that such incident took place and kerosene oil was poured on the respondent no. 2 for the purposes of setting her at fire. On the other hand, it shows that the allegation made in the complaint and the statement made by the respondents were exaggerated and made against all the members of the family which do not inspire confidence at all. It also appears that this complaint was filed against all members of the family of the petitioner no. 1, husband only to make harassment. These facts were not taken into consideration by the learned court concerned while passing the order of summoning dated 5.6.2007 and also the learned court of Sessions did not consider all these facts but passed the order in routine manner, therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well well as learned revisional court cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as a result the present petition is allowed and orders dated 5.6.2007 and 9.8.2007 are hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023 A. Singh
Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to quash the impugned orders of summoning and revision passed in a complaint alleging dowry demand and harassment.
Suraj Pal Singh And Others
State of U.P. and Another
Subhash Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
