Neetu & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 4446 ALL

Citation : 2018 Latest Caselaw 4446 ALL
Judgement Date : 19 December, 2018

Allahabad High Court

Neetu & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 19 December, 2018

Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2147 of 2012
 
Revisionist :- Neetu & Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Kakkar
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

This criminal revision has been preferred for quashing the order dated 7.6.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7,Bijnor, in S.T. No.634 of 2010, under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 342, 307/34, 498A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shivala Kala, District Bijnor, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bijnor.

This Court had stayed the proceeding qua two accused-revisionists.

It is submitted that they were first named in the FIR and during investigation, their names were deleted. At the later stage the two unmarried girls have been named by witness PW-1 and PW-2 and that is how the impugned order arraying them as accused is passed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be used sparingly and as no cogent evidence is there the application could not have been allowed.

I have perused the order impugned and the application made for arraying the revisionist by the original complainant.

The summoning order and the order arraying the two revisionists as accused cannot be said to be bad. There is prima facie evidence which disclosed their involvement in a finding given by the Trial Court and nothing contrary is shown to this to allow this matter.

The Apex Court in (2010)SCC 512 Suman Versus State of Rajasthan has laid down the principles where Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. There is satisfaction recorded by the learned Trial Judge and, therefore, the order cannot be quashed.

This criminal revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

However, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, prayer for bail shall be considered expeditiously.

Order Date :- 19.12.2018/Mukesh