Allahabad High Court
Smt. Bhudevi And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2011
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20597 of 2011
Petitioner :- Smt. Bhudevi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Raj Kumar Khanna
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
There is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 1 in view of order proposed to be passed.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 24th May, 2011 passed Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Moradabad in S.T. No. 884 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Dharmendra & others), whereby the applicants Smt. Bhudevi and Kavita have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial under Section 306 IPC.
Earlier order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 3.8.2010 was set aside by this Court vide order dated 13.9.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 3811 of 2010 with a direction to decide the application afresh in light of decisions of the Apex Court in Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007 (58) ACC 254 and Sarabjit Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab & another, 2010 (2) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 141.
It appears that applicant no. 2-Kavita was married to Rajendra Singh-son of the complainant Kishan Pal Singh. Kavita lived with her husband for about one and a half years but thereafter, she came to her parents and the accused persons including the applicants refused to send Kavita with her husband and also used to insult Rajendra Singh in various manners. On or about 20.6.2008, Rajendra Singh went to the house of the accused to bring his wife where he was mal-treated and insulted for three days and was also threatened to implicate him in a case of dowry harassment and the accused persons refused to send Kavita with Rajendra Singh. On account of harassment, Rajendra Singh committed suicide on 23.6.2008. During trial, Kishan Pal-P.W.-1, Prem Pal-P.W.-2 and Sushil Kumar-P.W.-3 were examined and reiterated the aforesaid facts in their deposition. On the basis of material available on record, trial court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material against the applicants to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Trial court has also recorded its satisfaction that the evidence against the applicants is of such a nature, which may result in their conviction.
Learned counsel tried to criticize the statements of witnesses to show that no prima facie is made out against the applicants but appreciation of evidence cannot be done in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the satisfaction recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, no interference by this court is required.
Since the applicants are ladies and co-accused are already on bail, the application is disposed of with a direction that if the applicants surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail be considered and disposed of by the court concerned in view of Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290 as affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
If, for any reason, the disposal of the bail application on the same day is not possible, then the court below shall release the applicants on interim bail till the final disposal of the bail application.
Order Date :- 7.7.2011
KU
