Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 December, 2022
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1853 of 2022
Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Birendra Singh Khokher
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State of U.P.
2. The revisionist- Suresh Chandra Sharma, by means of this revision, has challenged the order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Session Trial No. 172 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, by which, three persons namely, Uttam Kaushik, Nakul Kaushik and the present revisionist stood charged for offences under Sections- 498A, 323, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. Revisionist's contentions are below;
Firstly, because the revisionist is posted as Reader in Civil Court at Bulandshahar and was present on his duty on the date of occurrence, therefore his presence at the place of occurrence at Gautam Buddh Nagar was impossible; he produced the evidence for the same viz. a certificate issued from the institution concerned, therefore, he is not having and cannot have any hand in the alleged occurrence.
Secondly, he is working in Bulandshahar, therefore, he is residing at same place only. As he was living separately, therefore no case against him is made out.
Thirdly, there are only vague and generalized omnibus allegations against him assigning no specific role, as such there was no evidence to frame charges against him.
Therefore, the revision may be allowed and charge against him may be quashed.
4. On the other hand, my attention has been drawn to the contents of the FIR in which there is a clear allegation that the present revisionist, who happens to be the father-in-law of the deceased is named as one of the accused persons, who allegedly had an active participation in torture and harassment meted out to the deceased. It is argued by the opposite side that the evidence collected demonstrated his clear role in the episode forcing the deceased to commit suicide.
5. It seems that in the present revision, the core argument relates to plea of alibi, which is a matter of evidence and final decision. Further, plea has been taken that he has been residing separately and therefore, possibly he could not have any role in the alleged demand of dowry and dowry related harassment. In my view, it is not necessary that the accused should be physically present to bring home the charges framed under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It may also be noted that offence charged upon the revisionist and two others is not a one time affair and may involve a continuous or persistent state of affairs. The grounds taken at this stage require deeper factual inquiry and can only be decided and adjudicated upon at the time of final judgment, after recording of evidence. It may also be noted that one of the co-accused Nakul Kaushik had filed a separate Criminal Revision No.1890 of 2022 with largely similar contentions but the same was discarded by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2022.
6. In my view, there has been enough of material before the court below as far as framing of charge under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are concerned, the revision lacks merits and is dismissed.
7. However, the concerned court is cautioned not to be influenced by any of the observations made in this order while deciding the case on merits.
Order Date :- 13.12.2022
Vik/-
