Dismissed

Kusum Rani v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2023CRLR/144/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 144 of 2023, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision against the rejection of Kusum Rani's discharge application. The Court held that courts must assume the prosecution material is true at the discharge stage and cannot analyze credibility or evidence then; thus, the lower court order summoning the accused was legal and sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Revision against the order rejecting the discharge application is dismissed.

Kusum Rani Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 144 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Kusum Rani Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Laddu Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kant Dubey,Santosh Kumar Dubey

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No.453 of 2022 (State Vs. Rahul and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 237 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is innocent and has not committed the present offences. No offence is made out against the revisionist under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that the revisionist neither demanded any dowry from the opposite party no.2 nor has made any assault upon her. It is also submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C. has repeated the same version. He further submitted that the investigation, which was carried out against the revisionist is wholly in appropriate and also the order passed by the court concerned without having applied its judicial mind and thereafter summoned the revisionist. It is further submitted that the present prosecution was launched by the first informant against the revisionist due to ulterior motive. It is next submitted that there is no sufficient ground in the case to proceed against the revisionist for the aforesaid offences. It is next submitted that the impugned order is vague and illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned order, whereby the application of revisionist for discharge was rejected are against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that there are clear allegations against the revisionist. It is

¶9

further submitted that in the F.I.R. there are allegations against the revisionist. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionist.

¶10

I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶11

So far the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 is concerned, by that order discharge application of the revisionist was rejected. It may be observed that at the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge application, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by prosecution is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.

¶12

Keeping aforesaid legal position in view, in the instant case, from the perusal of record, it is apparent that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged against the accused persons, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted where upon the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the accused persons, thereafter discharge application was moved and application was dismissed and date was posted for framing of charge against the revisionist. Disputed fact regarding the defence of the accused cannot be considered at the stage of deciding the application of discharge of the accused. Thus, learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out the illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed considering the facts and circumstances of the case in accordance with law.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.4.2023 Shiv

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kusum Rani v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Rani 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Bhan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramdhani @ Ramdhani Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another