Ram Karan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2434 of 2014

¶3

Ram Karan And Ors.

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				.....O	pposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ajai K Mishra, Prakash	umar Singh, Ram Lag Yadav	Rajendra an Misra,	Prasad Ram
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	Govt. Kushwa	Advocate, ha	Anil	Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 27

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh as well as Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶9

2. The instant application is filed by the applicants praying as under:-

¶10

"To quash the order dated 19.02.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi u/s 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 511 of 2010, Crime No. 596 of 2009 u/s 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Madhoganj, DistrictHardoi."

¶11

3. It is apparent from the record that despite showing the name of the counsel for the complainant, no one is cooperating in the present case.

¶12

4. As the matter pertains to the year 2014, the same is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶13

5. It is informed by Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1, namely, Ram Karan (father-in-law of the daughter of the complainant) died on 28.03.2017. Therefore, the present application/petition in relation to applicant no.1 is abated .

¶14

A482 No. 2434 of 2014

¶15

2

¶16

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.2 is mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant and applicant nos.3 and 4 are brothers-in-law of the daughter of the complainant. The marriage of daughter of respondent no.2 was solemnized with Arun Kumar s/o applicant nos.1 and 2. The husband and the wife were enjoying their matrimonial life, but due to some trivial issue arose between them, she committed suicide by consuming poison on 23.05.2009. As the information of the said incident was given to the family members of the deceased, they assembled at the house of the applicants, and the said incident was also reported to the police. The inquest as well as postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, family members of both the sides joined the funeral ceremony of the deceased.

¶17

It is further submitted that an application dated 25.06.2009 u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registering First Information Report was moved by the complainant on the basis of incorrect facts on the advice of a lawyer, thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged. After detailed investigation, no evidence was found against the applicants, hence, their names were dropped and the charge-sheet was submitted against Arun Kumar (husband).

¶18

It is next submitted that the trial was proceeded and after framing of charge, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Learned trial Court issued summoning order without considering the entire material available before it.

¶19

Drawing attention of the Court on the deposition of P.W.-1 annexed at page no.19 of the paper book, learned counsel for the applicants submits that P.W.-1, in his deposition, admitted before learned trial Court that family members of both the sides were present in the funeral ceremony of the body of the deceased. P.W-1 has further admitted that after 15 days, he came to Hardoi to meet a lawyer who advised him for framing a case of dowry death against the husband and his family members; on the lawyer's advice, he drafted a draft addressed to the Chief Minister; he visited the Court premises four to five times; his lawyer obtained his thumb impression on three pages; he never visited the police station for lodging the F.I.R.

¶20

A482 No. 2434 of 2014

¶21

3

¶22

Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2017 , dated 27.04.2017, learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that it is bounden duty of learned trial Court to consider the deposition of the witnesses and to consider the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of trial before passing the order u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Further relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 , learned counsel for the applicants lastly submits that if the entire deposition of P.W.-1 is considered properly, no case is made out against the applicants, therefore, the summoning order is liable to be set aside.

¶24

7. Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. submits that as sufficient evidence was found against the applicants in the deposition of the witnesses, the said application was allowed by the Court concerned. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicants were named in the F.I.R., but after investigation, their names were dropped due to lack of evidence. He also does not dispute the deposition of P.W.-1 annexed as Annexure No.3, in which, P.W.-1 categorically stated that the application for lodging the F.I.R. was moved on the advice of the lawyer.

¶25

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the summoning order, deposition of P.W.-1 as well as other relevant material, it is undisputed fact that after investigation, the names of the applicants were dropped and the charge-sheet was submitted against Arun Kumar (husband). During the course of trial, P.W.-1, in his deposition, stated that family members of both the sides were present in the funeral ceremony of the informant's daughter; after 15 days of the funeral ceremony, he went to Hardoi where he met with a lawyer who advised him for implicating the husband and his family members in a dowry case; he drafted a complaint addressed to the Chief Minister on the lawyer's advice. It is evident from the record that P.W.-1, in his deposition, also stated that he initiated the proceedings on his lawyer's advice. It is also apparent that P.W.-1 has stated that the F.I.R. in question

¶26

A482 No. 2434 of 2014

¶27

4

¶28

was lodged on the advice of the lawyer. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brijendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) observed that it is bounden duty of the Court concerned to consider the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer before passing the order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) observed that new tendency has been developed for implicating all the inlaws or family members of the husband in a dowry case. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has wrongly allowed the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. without considering the deposition of P.W.-1. Therefore, the application/petition is allowed . The order dated 19.02.2014 (supra) is set aside and the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

¶29

10. Office is directed to communicate this order the trial Court, forthwith.

¶30

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶31

August 25, 2025

¶32

Arpan

¶33

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Karan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dileep and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko and Another

Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Chandra Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Mayank Shekhar Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Narvada Prasad @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home (Crime and Investigation Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Narendra Kumar Trivedi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another