This criminal revision petition filed by the wife of the deceased was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of her application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional respondents, as the court found no illegality in the refusal.
Criminal revision petition and stay petition 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 FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Revision No. 1034 / 2016
Manju Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal Dudheria, By caste Oswal Jain, Aged about 40 years, Resident of Ward No.5, Rajaldesar, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Shrimali
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay - PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
09/03/2017
This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.5/2010, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1034/2016]
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to face the trial in the aforementioned session case along with co-accused Pradeep Bagrecha.
The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that in her statements recorded as PW-3 and in the statements of two other witnesses Babulal and Kranti Jain recorded as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, it is specifically alleged that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have demanded and received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/as dowry at Rajaldesar. It is also alleged that from the statements of PW-1 to PW-3, it is clear that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have harassed the deceased Manisha @ Sarika, therefore, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 be summoned to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
The trial court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and after taking into consideration the entire evidence of the PW-1 to PW-3, has come to the conclusion that from the statements of all the said witnesses, it is clear that the deceased Manisha @ Sarika and her husband Pradeep Bagrecha were residing at Bangalore and later on, Pradeep Bagrecha went to Nigeria and thereafter the deceased Manisha @ Sarika also went to Nigeria.
The trial court is of the opinion that from the above evidence, it is clear that when the deceased and her husband were living in Nigeria and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had never visited there, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 can be tried along with the sole accused Pradeep Bagrecha.
After going through the impugned order and after perusing all the statements of PW-1 to pw-3, copies of which supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1034/2016]
the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order, hence, no interference is made out in the same.
Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.26
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon respondentsNos.2 and 3 to face the trial for dowry harassment.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's decision on the ground that respondents were not present when the deceased was in Nigeria.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manju Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal Dudheria
State of Rajasthan
Mool Chand S/o Shri Bahadul Mal Bagrecha
Smt. Pukhraj W/o Shri Mool Chand Bagrecha
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
