Saurabh Dwivedi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1523 of 2013

¶3

Saurabh Dwivedi And 5 Others

¶4

.....Revisionist(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)	: Amit Kumar Srivastava, Singh	Arun Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Avanish Kumar Shukla, G Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, Dwivedi	ovt. Advocate, Raghavendra

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶9

This revision has been filed against the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 663 of 2012, State v. Saurabh Dwivedi and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342, 467, 468, 420 and 306/511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionists.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the marriage of the revisionist no.1 was solemnized with Aparna Dwivedi,the daughter of opposite party no.2, against the will of her parents. The opposite party no.2 with the collusion of local police, started interfering in the peaceful matrimonial life. Being aggrieved by the said act of opposite party no.2, revisionist no.1 and Aparna Dwivedi filed a Writ Petition No. 8912 of 2010 wherein by an interim order, protection was granted by this Court. After some time, opposite party no.2 has taken away his daughter to his house on the pretext of vidai but later on lodged an F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 297 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against the revisionists. During investigation, on 12.04.2010, statement of

¶11

CRLR No. 1523 of 2013

¶12

2

¶13

opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Again on 29.04.2010, statement of opposite party no.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the statements of Aparna Dwivedi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded against her will. After completion of Investigation, Investigating Officer exonerated all the revisionists except revisionist nos. 1 and 2 and prepared a charge-sheet against them.

¶14

It is further submitted that the said charge-sheet was was sent to the Circle Officer, Govind Nagar for approval but the Circle Officer, under the influence of opposite party no.2 directed the matter for re-investigation. The Investigating Officer started re-investigating the matter and on 18.06.2010 filed a charge-sheet against remaining four revisionists. Thereafter, the revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court dismissed the discharge application vide its order dated 23.04.2013. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been filed. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the said application as no prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. Therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside and the revision may be allowed.

¶15

Per contra , it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application filed by the revisionists as the learned Trial Court has rejected the said application after taking into consideration the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer. The Trial Court found that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionists. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

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.

¶17

As per the fact of the case, a First Information Report as Case Crime No. 297 of 2010, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act was lodged against the revisionists. During investigation, statements of the opposite party no.2 and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of Investigation, Investigating Officer exonerated all the revisionists except revisionist nos. 1 and 2 and prepared a charge-sheet against them. Thereafter, the matter was directed for

¶18

CRLR No. 1523 of 2013

¶19

3

¶20

re-investigation. The Investigating Officer started re-investigating the matter and, on 18.06.2010, filed a charge-sheet against remaining four revisionists. Thereafter, the revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court dismissed the discharge application vide its order dated 23.04.2013.

¶21

The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

¶22

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.

¶23

Further, as is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this revision. At this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. 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 revisionists are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the revisionists during the course of investigation. The Court concerned has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force

¶24

CRLR No. 1523 of 2013

¶25

4

¶26

in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the revisionists. 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.

¶27

In view of the above, the present revision is dismissed .

¶28

February 24, 2026

¶29

Vijay

¶30

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saurabh Dwivedi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Dwivedi and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidhan Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Murti Anchal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Verma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Shri Kumar Gupta and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt Manju Ram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev @ Karu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another