Allowed

Udaypratap and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023CRLR/726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenges the dismissal of a discharge application. The High Court held that the trial court failed to address the grounds in the application and did not find cruelty under Section 498A IPC given the absence of dowry demand. The impugned order was set aside for not being a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the discharge application was set aside, and the trial court was directed to decide the application afresh within two months of producing a certified copy.

Udaypratap and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194602

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 726 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Udaypratap And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Notice is reportedly served on opposite party No.2 but none appeared on his behalf to press present criminal revision or to file counter affidavit.

¶8

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Budaun, in Case No.5363 of 2022 (State vs. Uday Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No.42 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Budaun, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionists has been dismissed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that in present case the informant Alka Rani lodged an FIR at police station concerned on 24.11.20221 against accused revisionists and their four family members/relatives with averment that the accused persons acting under conspiracy dislodge her from her matrimonial home. Her mother-in-law got deed of ejectment in respect of her and her husband took her to another home where he often picked up quarrel with her, used to abuse and gave beating to her and kicked her out therefrom. He also refused to keep her and her minor son with him. He did not make any arrangement for her meal and went away by blocking her mobile number. She is apprehending danger to her life and honour from accused persons. He next submitted that police carried out investigation in the case wherein statements of informant, her mother and independent witnesses Santosh Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Kishan Lal and Raghuveer Singh were recorded. The informant in her statement under Section 161

¶10

Cr.P.C. stated before the police that this was her second marriage with revisionist Uday Pratap, which was settled through Jeevansathi.Com and her marriage with her previous husband was dissolved and she was blessed with a child out of her wedlock with her previous husband. She was properly treated for some time after marriage by accused persons but thereafter she was subjected to cruelty by accused persons. She was abused and kicked out from the home. Her husband even refused to keep her and her child with him. He next submitted that the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the revisionists and dropped the name of other accused persons as their complicity was not found in alleged offence. This reveals that even Investigating Officer also found a part of the averment in FIR unreliable. He next submitted that there is no allegations in FIR as well as in the statement of witnesses with regard to demand of dowry. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not fulfilled in the matter. The learned trial court has taken cognizance against the revisionists for those offence on the basis of charge-sheet and dismissed the discharge application filed by the revisionists under Section 239 Cr.P.C. without considering the grounds taken in discharge application dated 30.5.2022. No injury report surfaced during investigation. Therefore, the allegations under Section 323 IPC are also not made out against the revisionists. The independent witnesses have stated during investigation that family members of accused Uday Pratap were always taking proper care of child of informant. Some altercation would take place between accused persons and informant on domestic matters. He lastly submitted that another FIR was lodged by the informant vide Crime No.624 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau against present accused persons alongwith two others wherein charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons, after investigation in said sections on 16.10.2021, whereas present FIR was lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Budaun. Thus, opposite party No.2 lodged two FIRs with regard to same matters in two different districts in order to harass the revisionists and family members. There is no allegations of demand of dowry against accused persons in present FIR.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by learned court below. The charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion and the accused can only be discharged, if the court finds after hearing the submissions of parties and material on record that the charge against the accused to be groundless and in the present

¶12

case, it cannot be said on the basis of FIR and material collected during investigation that the charge against the accused is groundless. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

The main contention of the revisionists in present case is that there is no allegation of demand of dowry in FIR lodged by Smt. Alka Rani, wife of revisionist No.1. No date and time has been mentioned with regard to any of the allegations made in the FIR. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, the applicant has not made any allegation regarding demand of dowry against revisionists. This is admitted fact that this is second marriage of the de-facto complainant and her first marriage with her previous husband got dissolved by decree of divorce. She was having a son out of her wedlock with her previous husband. She resided at the place of her matrimonial home for some time after her marriage with her son. However, after some time, her mother-in-law refused permission to come and live in her matrimonial home and got a dispossession deed executed in this regard. The independent witnesses have stated that family members of the accused Uday were taking care of informant and her son. However, some altercation began between the informant and family members of her husband. No injury report surfaced in support of the allegations under Section 323 IPC. No date and time are mentioned in the statement of complainant with regard to Section 504 IPC.

¶14

Section 498-A IPC reads as under:-

¶15

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

¶16

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶17

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

¶18

In present case, there is no allegations of demand of dowry in FIR

¶19

as well as statement of the informant and witnesses against revisionist. Therefore, in absence of any allegation or evidence with regard to demand of dowry Clause (b) of explanation of Section 498-A IPC is not applicable in the present case. Therefore, it is to be seen whether, prima facie, case is made out against the revisionist to the effect that whether the conduct of the revisionist was of such a nature as is likely to drive the informant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, on the basis of FIR as well as evidence collected during investigation. Learned court below has not given any finding in this regard in impugned order. Therefore, I find some force in present revision. The impugned order whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been dismissed is not a speaking order in terms of the grounds taken in discharge application. The impugned order is vitiated by legal errors and the same is not sustainable.

¶20

In view of aforesaid, present revision stands allowed .

¶21

Impugned order dated 11.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Budaun, in Case No.5363 of 2022 (State vs. Uday Pratap and others), arising out of Case Crime No.42 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Budaun, whereby the discharge application moved by the revisionists has been rejected is, hereby, set aside and the court below is directed to decide the application for discharge moved by the revisionists afresh while addressing the grounds taken in discharge application moved by the revisionists in the light of observations made in this judgement, in accordance with law, as far as possible within two months from the date of produection of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Kamarjahan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Udaypratap and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaypratap and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rukhsar Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Anjali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hushana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Sadhana Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sudha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another