Dismissed

Jasbeer Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023CRLP/17661/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the impugned orders under which the accused were not discharged. The court held that the trial and revisional courts considered the material correctly and found no illegality in their findings regarding the prima facie case against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Cr.Misc. Writ Petition No. 17661 of 2022 dismissed with no interference in the impugned orders.

Jasbeer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191989

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17661 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Jasbeer Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shanti Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶8

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.08.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, F.T.C. IInd, Hapur in Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2022 (Jasbeer Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and another).

¶9

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

It is submitted that in this case the petitioner No. 1 was Chachia Sasur and petitioner No. 2 was married Nanad of respondent No. 4. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner, husband and other members of his family with false allegation that there was demand of dowry, harassment and molestation made on the part of petitioners and other co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. and the matter was investigated by the police. During the course of investigation statement of respondent (wife) was recorded in which she made similar allegations and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded before the learned court in which she did not make any allegation against the petitioners even though charge sheet was filed by the police and after taking cognizance the court proceeded in the matter. An application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge was moved on the part of petitioners before the learned court but it was rejected without considering the material on record and the fact that petitioner No. 1 was living separately and petitioner No. 2 was a married Nanad and was living in Punjab. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent (wife) with false allegations only for the purpose of harassment of the family including the petitioners. The order passed by learned court concerned was challenged in criminal revision before the learned court of Session but it was also dismissed summarily in routine manner without considering the material on record. In this way, the orders passed by the learned trial court as well as the revisional court cannot be said to be in conformity with law but being illegal and in appropriate are liable to be set aside and the petition is to be allowed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case there was demand of dowry and harassment of the respondent (wife) by her husband and other members of his family, that was the reason present F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners and other co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. It is also contended that on the basis of fact that petitioner No. 1 was living separately and petitioner No. 2 was a married Nanad who was living in Punjab it cannot be concluded at this stage that they could not make harassment of the respondent (wife) in relation to demand of dowry. It is also contended that the F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent (wife) herself with aforesaid allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment. During the course of investigation her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded by the I.O. in which she made allegations against the petitioners also. In her statement which was recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. though she did not specifically named the petitioners for making demand of dowry and harassment but on the basis of this fact only it cannot be said that the statement made by the respondent before the I.O. and the allegation in F.I.R. is totally false and made for the purpose of making harassment of the petitioners. From the material collected during investigation prima facie case is made out against the petitioners also. This fact was taken into consideration while passing the order by the learned court concerned and also it was considered by the learned revisional court. In this way, there is no any illegality and impropriety in passing the orders. The petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Section 239 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that:-

¶13

When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

¶14

6. In the case of Smt. Rumi Dhar V. State of West Bengal, (2009) 6 SCC 364 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:-

¶15

" While considering an application for discharge filed in terms of Section 239 of the Code, it was for the learned Judge to go into the details of the allegations made against each of the accused persons so as to form an opinion as to whether any case at all has been made out or not as a strong suspicion in regard thereto shall subserve the requirements of law."

¶16

In the case of of State of M.P. V. Mohanlal Soni, 2000 Cr.L.J. 3504 it was observed that:-

¶17

"8. The crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused."

¶18

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the orders passed by the learned courts below and the material collected during

¶19

investigation there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional court but it is based on the material on record and the relevant law. Hence it cannot be said to be not inconformity with law. Therefore, it does not require any interference by this Court in this petition but this petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Suraj Srivastav

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jasbeer Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbeer Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Minor Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mr. X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Vs State of Up and Another

Jagdish and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Pal Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another