Allahabad High Court
Nikhil Suryavansi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 August, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161021
Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2824 of 2019
Revisionist :- Nikhil Suryavansi And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 6.7.2019 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Fast Track Court (FTC), Muzaffar Nagar, in Case No. 562 of 2018 (Smt. Deepa vs. Nikhil Suryavanshi), under Section 406 IPC. By the impugned order, learned court below has dismissed the application under Section 19Kha moved by the revisionist accused persons for discharge under Section 245(1)Cr.P.C..
Factual matrix of the case which got unfold from the record is that respondent no. 2 who is original complainant filed criminal complaint against accused persons who are presently revisionists with averment that marriage of the complainant was solemnized with revisionist no. 1 Nikhil Suryavanshi, on 12.12.2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals in which her father spent Rs. 15,00,000/-, however, the husband and in-laws of the complainant/respondent no. 2 started demanding additional dowry after the marriage and on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, they coerced and harassed the complainant/respondent no. 2 and also engaged in mar-peet with her. They grabbed streedhan of the complainant and even after nine years of marriage, they did not restore her streedhan to her. Her streedhan includes huge number of ornaments, furniture and other valuables.
Learned court below summoned the accused persons to face trial for charge under Section 406 IPC after recording statement of complainant and witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The accused appeared before trial court and were enlarged on bail. Statement of complainant Smt. Deepa and that of Anangpal Singh, father of the complainant, was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as PW-1 and PW-2. After the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and at the stage of framing of charge, accused persons moved an application under Section 406 IPC on 3.6.2019 claiming discharge under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. on ground that complainant has not filed any receipt of her ornaments or valuables in support of her allegation levelled against accused persons regarding charge under Section 406 IPC. Inasmuch as the complainant did not issued any demand notice for the accused persons for refund of streedhan, therefore, in absence of insufficient evidence, no charge under Section 406 IPC is made out in the case.
Learned court below has dismissed the application by impugned order dated 6.7.2019 on ground that on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant in the form of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 there appear sufficient grounds to frame charge against them as from evidence on record, it is found that streedhan of complainant/respondent no. 2 given by her father is held by opposite parties/revisionists and there is also evidence that even on demand, they did not refund the same to the complainant, therefore, application is groundless and deserves to be released.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, accused persons have filed present revision on the ground that complainant herself took away all her valuables and ornaments which were kept in her almirah with her after her departure to her parental place on 20.8.2017. Learned court below has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective while dismissing application for discharge. No prima facie case is made out on the basis of evidence recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. for framing of charge against accused persons, therefore, revision may be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Section 245 Cr.P.C. provides as under:-
"(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless."
From above statutory provision it appears that magistrate can only discharge an accused under Section 245 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case only when he considers; after assigning reasons that no case against accused is made out which, unrebutted would be sufficient for warrant his conviction.
In present case, learned trial court has considered the evidence of complainant/respondent no. 2 and her father with regard to charge under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and at this stage, it cannot be said that said charge levelled against accused persons is groundless. Matter stated to have been referred for mediation but the same has failed as stated by learned counsel for the parties. Revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Impugned order passed by learned trial court is affirmed. As matter is old, it is expected that learned court below will proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Revision stands dismissed with above observations.
Order Date :- 9.8.2023
A.P. Pandey
