Disposed¶14

Karishma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2025NA528/14136/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge of prosecution witnesses — prosecution must state reasons when seeking discharge of witnesses; Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed/disposed; Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 354 IPC; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019; first informant; Additional Civil Judge (JD) Agra; P.S. Shamsabad; Allahabad High Court 2025; liberty to file fresh discharge application.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of: no interference with the impugned order; liberty reserved to the applicant to file a fresh discharge application stating reasons, to be considered by the court below in accordance with law. ¶14

Karishma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 19.03.2025 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.8, Agra, rejecting the applicant's application for discharge of witnesses in Case No.17003 of 2023, should be quashed along with the entire proceedings of that case.

¶7

Court's answer

When the prosecution seeks to discharge some of its witnesses, it must mention the reason for doing so; accordingly, the court below did not err in rejecting the discharge application which gave no reason.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

No illegality was found in the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 rejecting the applicant's application for discharge of witnesses.

¶12

Key takeaways

The applicant was granted liberty to move a fresh application mentioning the reason for seeking discharge of the remaining witnesses, and the court below will consider any such application in accordance with law.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.), Order dated 02.05.2025 in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14136 of 2025 (Karishma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others): The applicant, stated to be the first informant in pending Case No.17003 of 2023 (case crime no.98 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 354 IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police Station Shamsabad, District Agra), sought quashing of the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.8, Agra, rejecting the application dated 16.01.2025 for discharge of remaining witnesses. Held: once the prosecution seeks to discharge some witnesses it must mention the reason; as no reason was stated, the court below committed no illegality in rejecting the application. The applicant was, however, permitted to move a fresh application stating the reasons, to be considered in accordance with law. Application disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69548

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14136 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Karishma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Shoib Khan, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.8, Agra as well as entire proceedings of Case No.17003 of 2023, arising out of case crime no.98 of 2022, under Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 354 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3/4 The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, Police StationShamsabad, District-Agra, whereby the learned court below rejected the application for discharge of witnesses filed by the applicant on 16.01.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is the first informant in the impugned proceeding and he moved an application to discharge certain witnesses as presence of them could not be ensured because of the reason that all of them have been working in other districts. It is further submitted that court below has erroneously rejected his application to discharge those witnesses though most of the fact witnesses had already been examined by the applicant.

¶9

Learned AGA has submitted that there is no illegality in

¶10

the impugned order as the applicant has not mentioned any reason seeking discharge of the remaining witnesses.

¶11

After considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that court below has rejected the discharge application of the applicant to discharge the remaining witness on the ground that applicant has not mentioned any reason for the same. This court is of the view that once prosecution seeks to discharge some of the witnesses then it has to mention the reason for the same.

¶12

Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

However, applicants are at liberty to move fresh application mentioning the reason for seeking discharge of the remaining witnesses. In case such application is filed then court below will consider it in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, present application is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 S.Chaurasia

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Karishma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karishma v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases