High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving allegations against a wife and in-laws.
Writ petition dismissed; petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India interlocutorily disposed of.
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.
AFR
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135757
Court No. - 87
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8242 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dheerendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narendra Singh, State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.
The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Setting-aside the impugned order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 9836 of 2015 (State vs. Sunita Devi) under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 66 I.T. Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.
(ii) Setting-aside the order dated 27.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 25, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2022 (Dheerendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others)."
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Dheerendra Kumar, the first informant lodged an FIR against his wife Sunita Devi, Brother-in-law Bhanu Pratap, Fatherin-law Shashibhushan Tiwari, Mother-in-law Madhuri Tiwari alias Indra Tiwari. After the investigation, only the wife Sunita Devi was charge-sheeted under Sections 504, 506, 211 IPC and Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act and the names of rest three accused were dropped.
It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the statement of the petitioner given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as in his examination-in-chief, he deposed about the involvement of the respondents-accused in the commission of crime but the learned Court did not summon to face the trial.
From the perusal of record, it transpires that the learned court below had rejected the application of the petitioner moved under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. as there was no cogent or strong material available on record against the accused-respondents. The allegations levelled against the rest of the co-accused were general in nature of extending threats. The said application seems to have been moved with the mala fide intent to falsely implicate the whole family.
Recently, the Hon'ble apex Court in N. Manoger and Another vs. Inspector of Police and others, 2024 SC Online SC 174 has emphasized that "power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extra-ordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and the crucial test as noticed above has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction…….."
The principles of law governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been well established in the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92 as under:
"Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner."
From the perusal of record, it is apparent that there is no specific allegations against the respondents-accused rather on the basis of general allegations, without any strong or cogent reason, the petitioner has moved the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to unnecessary harass the family members of his wife.
Consequently, there is no illegality in the order impugned. Matter requires no interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Puspendra
Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed any illegality or arbitrary exercise of power in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned order in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2022 warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. Manoger and Another vs. Inspector of Police and othersRelied on¶15
N. Manoger and Another vs. Inspector of Police and others, 2024 SC Online SC 174
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and othersRelied on¶16
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Dheerendra Kumar
State Of Up
Sunita Devi
Bhanu Pratap
Shashibhushan Tiwari
Madhuri Tiwari
Nand Prabha Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
