Allahabad High Court
Nirvan Singh Alias Nirman Singh vs State Of ... on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 297 of 2013
Revisionist :- Nirvan Singh Alias Nirman Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Home Civil Sectt.Lko.And Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K.Singh Kalhans,Richa Srivastava,Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
The present revision has been filed with the following main prayers:-
"(i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2013 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Court No.9, District Gonda in Sessions Trial No.16/13 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.436 of 2012, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj, District Gonda, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this revision.
(ii) Issue an order or direction upon the Court below after setting aside the impugned order dated 28.05.2013 to proceed against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in accordance to law in Sessions Trial No.16/13 (State Vs. Shravan Kumar Singh and others)."
This revision is neither admitted nor any interim order has been passed, however, learned counsel for the revisionist is present, therefore, I am deciding the case on merit.
The revisionist - Nirvan Singh alias Nirman Singh filed application 22 Kha under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite party nos.2, 3 to face the trial. The revisionists have stated in the application that Jeth of the deceased - Uday Bhan Singh and elder Nanad - Badkai Munni also harass the deceased for dowry and the F.I.R. was lodged naming the aforesaid accused persons. He has further mentioned in the application that there is act of commission of offence regarding the demand of dowry, therefore, they are also liable to be summoned in the present case. The case was heard before the court below on 28.05.2013 and the same was dismissed.
Heard Sri S.K. Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Suresh Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the order passed by the court below is based on surmises and conjuncture and it has not applied its mind. He has further submitted that the revisionist has levelled specific allegation against opposite party nos.2 and 3, they are liable to be summoned by the court below and the court below committed error while passing the impugned order. The trial court concluded the trial on 14.11.2013 and all the accused have been acquitted. He has said that he filed appeal before this Court against the said acquittal order.
It is admitted on record that charge sheet was filed and opposite party no.2 - Uday Bhan Singh and opposite party no.3 - Badkai Munni were exonerated from the charges and charge sheet was not filed against them and it was found that opposite party no.2 is living separately for the last five years and has no any relation with the act of the commission of offence. It is worth to be noted here that opposite party no.2 - Badkai Munni was married prior to 12 years from the date of incident and she was residing with her husband. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter, the charge sheet was not filed and it was found that they did not commit any offence. While exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court has seen the entire material i.e. charge sheet as well as the material brought before the court in the application filed by the aggrieved party. The court has recorded finding that since the general allegation has been levelled and they are living separately, there is no need to summon the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and it will be futile exercise. The Court below has recorded the finding which is perused by this Court and the entire material placed before me are not sufficient to summon the opposite party nos.2 and 3.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court has also time to time passed several judgments, in which the Apex Court has propounded that in relation to case of dowry demand, the entire family members are implicated by levelling general allegations. It is pertinent to mention a case wherein said view has been dealt in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464. In the present case also the opposite party no.2 - Jeth of the deceased, who was residing separately and opposite party no.3 - elder Nanad of the deceased who got married 12 years prior to the marriage of deceased, are such victims, against whom such general allegations have been levelled, thus, the order passed by the court below does not require any interference.
After looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below needs no interference, thus, revision is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Atul
