Dismissed¶18

Mahaveer v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025CRLR/1184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Harvir Singh, J.; CRLR No. 1184 of 2024, decided September 23, 2025. Dismissal of criminal revision against refusal, under Section 319 CrPC, to summon additional/prospective accused (in-laws of the deceased) in a dowry-death case tried before the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur; chargesheet only against husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law; alleged dowry demand Rs. 2,00,000/-; absence of eye-witness; trial in progress; no interference with impugned order.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any eye-witness to the death of the deceased in her matrimonial home, it is not appropriate to conclude that the accused who were not chargesheeted were responsible for causing her death. ¶13

Mahaveer vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1184 of 2024

¶3

Mahaveer

¶4

		.....Revisionist(s)
	Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)		: Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.
Court No.- 93

¶5

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State. Despite being served, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

¶7

Present revision has been filed against the order dated 25.1.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur, by which the application moved by the complainant / informant under Section 319 CrPC has been dismissed. The said application was moved for summoning the prospective accused, those who are the near relatives of the other accused.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the prospective accused, namely, Satendra, Sudhir, Syed and Mahendra are the brothers-in-law (devar) of the deceased and Priyanka is the nanad, whereas Jajju is the maternal father-in-law (chachiya sasur) of the deceased. It has been alleged that the in-laws of the deceased subjected her to cruelty and were demanding dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It has further been alleged that the deceased was being harassed on account of non-fulfillment of dowry demand made by the in-laws and all family members from the in-laws side were demanding th said dowry. Learned counsel submits that P. Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined in the present case prior to passing of the order dated 25.1.2024. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that P. W. 3 has also been examined subsequent to passing of the order under challenge. Learned counsel also submitted that the in-laws of the deceased are

¶9

CRLR No. 1184 of 2024

¶10

¶11

collectively responsible for causing the death of the deceased, as on the fateful day, when the parents of the deceased arrived at her matrimonial home, all the family members ran away and the body of the deceased was found lying on the floor in the house. On enquiring from different persons of the village, an information was gathered that the deceased was done to death by the in-laws on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand. Learned counsel also submitted that P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, have been examined and have categorically stated that apart from the accused, those have already been charged, i. e. the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, the prospective accused were equally responsible for causing the death of the deceased and hence the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the specific allegations have been made against all the accused, but since investigation has been conducted by the investigating officer and on the basis of the said investigation, chargesheet has been filed only against three accused, though others are also fully responsible in committing the crime.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur is in accordance with law. Since the matter was investigated by the investigating officer after conducting a thorough investigation in the case, the names of the prospective accused were dropped and chargesheet was filed against the husband, Jitendra, father-in-law Siddh Gopal and mother-in-law Sunaina, as the involvement of the other prospective accused was not found in the said case. The prospective accused were equally responsible for the death of the deceased and hence the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur is liable to be quashed.

¶13

Having regard to the rival contentions and the fact that no eye-witness was present, when the deceased died in her matrimonial home and therefore, in the absence of any eye-witness, it will not be appropriate to reach at the conclusion that the accused, who have not been chargesheeted, were responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

¶14

Since the trial of the case is in progress, any opinion expressed on the merits, may affect final decision of the case. However, sweeping allegations

¶15

CRLR No. 1184 of 2024

¶16

¶17

have been made against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law and other prospective accuse. The said allegations levelled in respect of the prospective accused, have not been found sufficient by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 1, Fatehpur, therefore, the prospective accused persons were not summoned. Hence, no interference is required with the impugned order.

¶18

The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶20

September 23, 2025 HR

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahaveer v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Prasad Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Other

Nilesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kundan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabhakar Dutt Mishra vs State of Up and Another

Vimal Yadav and Another vs State of Up and Another