Allahabad High Court
Smt. Poonam Verma vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 465 of 2023
Revisionist :- Smt. Poonam Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
01. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 7 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.05.2022 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Crime against women)/Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No.4204 of 2020, (Smt. Poonam Verma vs. Neeraj Verma and others) whereby an application moved by the revisionist (complainant) Smt. Poonam Verma for summoning of her in-laws was dismissed.
03. From perusal of papers following facts emerge:-
The complainant Smt. Poonam Verma filed a complaint against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth, jethani, nand, mamiya sasur, a total number of 7 persons with the allegations that her-in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and that they have been demanding a motorcycle, Rs.2 lakh in cash and have been perpetrating atrocities on her for non-fulfilment of that demand. It is further alleged in the complaint that once (date and time missing) they attempted to set her blaze by pouring kerosene oil, however, she saved herself somehow. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 05.06.2013 at about 1.00 P.M. in the afternoon, all the seven persons (who are residents of New Town Faridabad, Haryana) came at her place in Mathura and physically assaulted her. She was saved by one Ghanshyam Verma. They repeated their demand. After recording the statement under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. husband Neeraj Verma was summoned. The case proceeded and statement of witnesses u/s 244 of Cr.P.C were recorded. Thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved. Learned trial court did not find sufficient evidence to summon rest of six persons and dismissed the same. Now the complainant is before this Court in this criminal revision.
04. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there is enough evidence given by P.W.1, P.W.2. The impugned order has been passed ignoring the statements given by two witnesses. The impugned order suffers from illegality hence, is liable to be set aside.
05. I went through copy of the statement given by complainant as P.W.2 available on record. It may be noted that the revisionist has not filed copy of the statement of P.W.1 Hari Kishan Verma for the reasons best known to her.
06. The learned trial court referred to a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others in Criminal Appeal No.1750 of 2008 decided on 10.01.2014 to stress the point that at the time of summoning the accused persons, by exercise of the court's powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. level of satisfaction to be arrived at by the trial court is higher than which is required at the time of initial summoning of accused persons on the basis of police report or a complaint after recording statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The court rightly took note of the legal position that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are extraordinary in nature and should be exercised sparingly in cases where the circumstances so warrant. It is not so that the trial court may exercise the powers just because they are there. There must be a very good ground to exercise its powers to attain the goal that no culprit should go unpunished, simultaneously keeping in mind that the court has to be very cautious and careful that machinery of law may not be misused at the hands of unscrupulous litigant and that innocent persons do not have to face unnecessary hassles of criminal trial. Learned trial court, after going through the evidence on record, formed an opinion that there has not been enough material of convincing nature which can justify the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. In my view, discretion of the court has been well applied in this case. I do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned order so as to interfere in the same.
Hence, the criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
Asha
