Allahabad High Court
Maan Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home ... on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 480 of 2022
Revisionist :- Maan Singh And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bharat Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Prem Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
The present criminal revision has been preferred with a prayer to summon the lower court record and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-III, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No.01 of 2019 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.14 of 2018, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli.
By the impugned order dated 02.04.2021, the revisionists have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that though the name of revisionists was mentioned in the F.I.R. but Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet, had exonerated the revisionists and charge sheet was not filed against them. It has been further submitted that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer has been overlooked by the trial court and on the basis of statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the revisionists have been summoned. Further, it has been argued that the trial court has passed the order without application of mind.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has pointed out that in the F.I.R. the revisionists were named and specific role of dowry demand has been assigned to them. It has been further stated that during trial P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 both have deposed before the court below regarding the harassment and dowry demand.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The record reveals that the revisionists have been named in the F.I.R. and specific role has been assigned to them and they are relative to the deceased, who died within 7 years of marriage. P.W.-1 is father of deceased and P.W.-2 is mother of deceased. Both have specifically deposed before the court, assigning the role of dowry demand and harassment to the deceased. The summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is based on the material and evidences, therefore, at this stage, I do not find that it is a fit case to be interfered.
At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the revisionists may be permitted to surrender before the court below and apply for bail.
It is therefore, directed that in case the applicants/revisionists surrender before the court below within one month from today and prefer bail application, it will decide the said bail application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month, thereafter. It is further provided that while deciding the bail application of the applicants/revisionists, the court below will take into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5191 of 2021 on 07.10.2021 and decide it in accordance with law.
The revision stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.5.2022
Atul
