A father-in-law accused in a dowry death case challenged the rejection of his discharge application; the High Court found prima facie evidence against him and dismissed the revision.
None; prayer refused and criminal revision dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1166 of 2025
Shahzade
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s):Hari Bans Singh, Jash Ram,
Nand Shyam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the
revisionist - Shahzade with the prayer to set-aside
the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO
Act) Court No.3, Allahabad whereby discharge
application moved by the revisionist has been
rejected in S.T. No.2364 of 2023, arising out of
case crime no. 206 of 2023, under Sections 498-A,
304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tharwai, District
Prayagraj.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as
well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the entire record.Despite service of
notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2
3. Admit.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in this dowry death case,
though he was living separately from his son and
daughter-in-law. The police has also submitted
charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence
against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to
constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The
present prosecution has been instituted with a
malafide intention. Learned counsel for the
CRLR No. 1166 of 2025
2
revisionist impressed upon certain documents and
statements in support of his contention. The
revisionist has no concern with the present matter.
It is further submitted that the revisionist is the
father-in-law of the deceased. He never made any
demand of additional dowry nor the deceased was
subjected to cruelty and harassment by him in
connection with the said demand. It is also
submitted that since the deceased was unable to
conceive and she has no child, she was living in
frustration and her treatment was also going on in
this regard and she subsequently committed suicide
by hanging herself. The revisionist has played no
role in commission of the alleged crime. It is also
submitted that the discharge application moved on
behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an
arbitrary manner. The impugned order suffers from
infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind
warranting interference by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer
and submitted that at the stage of considering the
discharge application, the Magistrate / Court
dealing with the matter is required to apply
judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to
whether prima-facie case has been made out against
the accused or not. The Court concerned after
applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned
order on the basis of sufficient evidence on
record. The revisionist and the deceased were
living in the same house and the I.O. has collected
ample evidence with regard to cruelty and
harassment caused to the deceased by her in-laws,
particularly the informant of this case, who is the
father of the deceased, has very categorically
assigned role of the present revisionist during
investigation. A ligature mark has been found by
the doctor on the neck of the deceased but no
plausible explanation has been given by the
revisionist before the I.O. that as to why his
daughter-in-law committed suicide within a span of
one year and six months after the marriage. There
CRLR No. 1166 of 2025
3
is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order
warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the
revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the entire record including the impugned
order.
7. The parameters for discharge and framing of
charge are well settled by a catena of judicial
precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of P. Vijayanvs.State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
held that the Judge is not a mere post office to
frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but
has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of
the case in order to determine whether a case for
trial has been made out by the prosecution. In
assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the
court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter
or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and
probabilities which is really the function of the
Court, after the trial starts.
8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The
State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under
Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
the settled position of law is that the Judge while
considering the question of framing the charge
under the said section has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose
of finding out whether or not a prima facie case
against the accused has been made out and whether
the materials placed before the Court discloses
grave suspicion against the accused which has not
been properly explained to the Court, then in such
a case the Court will be fully justified in framing
the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other
hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before the Court gives rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge
will be fully justified in discharging the accused.
CRLR No. 1166 of 2025
4
9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge
of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with
the matter is required to apply judicial mind only
with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie
case has been made out against the accused or not.
The Court at this stage is not required to analyze
the material on record to find-out as to whether
the matter may lead to conviction or not.
Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of
conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate
is not required to analyze the evidence on merits
but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as
to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate
criminal proceedings in respect of the offence
which is said to have been committed (Vide :R.P.
Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866,
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).
10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the
prosecution claims that the accused revisionist
alongwith other co-accused persons made demand of
additional dowry from the deceased in the form of
Rupees One Lakh cash and due to non-fulfilment of
the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty and
harassment. Revisionist was named in the F.I.R.
The witnesses of this case including the informant
have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated
by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Medical
evidence also corroborates the prosecution case.
Plea taken by the revisionist does not seem to be
plausible that only after one year and six months
of the marriage the deceased committed suicide in
frustration that she was unable to conceive.
Specific ground of separate living has been taken
by the revisionist but no cogent evidence has been
produced before the I.O. in this regard. Further,
sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by
the I.O. against the revisionist during
investigation for his active participation in the
CRLR No. 1166 of 2025
5
commission of the crime which prima facie shows
that the offence has been committed by the
revisionist. Hence, all the offences for which
discharge application of the revisionist was
rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.
From a perusal of the material available on record
and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this
stage it cannot be said that offences levelled
against the revisionist are not made out and the
record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly
made out against the revisionist. The Court
concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge
application. There is no force in the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
The impugned order does not suffer from illegality,
infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The
prayer made in the revision is refused. The
criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable
to be dismissed and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
September 12, 2025
safi
(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the discharge application rejection in the dowry death case was justified and warranted judicial interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Vijayan vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶7
(2010) 2 SCC 398 · Who else cites this
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of MaharashtraRelied on¶8
(2002) 2 SCC 135 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶9
A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶9
1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶9
2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P.
Opposite Party No. 2
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court