Allahabad High Court
Sharafat Husain vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96881
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4500 of 2023
Revisionist :- Sharafat Husain
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Hasham,Syed Faiz Hasnain,Syed Riyaz Askari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Maurya,Vicky Rastogi
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Syed Faiz Hasnain, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Mahendra Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Moradabad in Case No. 12193 of 2019 (State Vs. Sharafat Husain and others) under Sections 420, 323, 498-A I.P.C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Moradabad, whereby, the discharge application filed by revisionist under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge in aforementioned criminal case has been rejected as well as the order dated 04.07.2023, whereby, Court below has proceeded to frame separate and distinct charges under Sections 420, 323, 498-A, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused/revisionist.
4. As charges have been framed against revisionist, therefore, in view of above and also the law laid down by Apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1979 (2) SCC 179, the question of discharge raised by revisionist has now become academic. Therefore, no effective relief can be granted to the revisionist insofar as, the order impugned dated 11.05.2023 rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist is concerned.
5. In view of above, the revision shall stand dismissed as having rendered infructuous in respect of the impugned order dated 11.05.2023.
6. With regard to the veracity of framing of charge order dated 04.07.2023 passed by Court below, learned counsel for revisionist vehemently urged that in view of the material on record, it is explicitly clear that none of the charges framed against revisionist are born out from the record. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. 2019 SCC Online SC 877, learned counsel for revisionist submits that Court is not bound by the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer in the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. To the contrary, the Court has to itself scrutinize the papers accompanying the police report and on basis thereof, find out the exact nature of the criminality alleged to have been committed by the charge sheeted accused. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for revisionist that no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. can be said to have been committed by the revisionist as there is no sufficient material on the record to show that prior to the marriage having been solemnized the factum of working of the revisionist-1 as Shiksha Mitra was not in the knowledge of the proposed wife as well as the first informant and further the service of the husband namely Sharafat Husain stand regularized as Assistant Teacher. On the above premise, he therefore, contends that Court below has erred in law in framing charge under Section 420 I.P.C. against revisionist.
7. It is then contended that since allegations with regard to the demand of dowry are vague and false allegation not substantiated by material particulars, therefore, no good ground exits to continue the prosecution of the revisionist under Section 498-A I.P.C. or Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. It is lastly contended that since no injury has been received nor there is no material to denote any injury having been sustained by the first informant or others, the charge under Section 323 I.P.C. is also misconceived.
9. On the cumulative strength of above the learned counsel for revisionist submits that no good ground exists on the record to frame charges against accused revisionist. As such, the framing of charge order passed by Court below is in excess of jurisdiction therefore arbitrary. As such, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 in opposition to the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for revisionist in challenging the framing of charge order passed by Court below falls in the realm of fanciful doubts. The veracity of the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be evaluated or doubted at the stage of the framing of charge. It is only at the time of cross-examination of such witnesses they can be contradicted either with their previous statement or with regard to veracity of the deposition made before Court below. On the above conspectus, they therefore, contend that the grounds raised in challenge to the framing of charge order are wholly misconceived. Attention of the Court was then invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018) 16 SCC 299, wherein, the Court has observed that framing of charge order can be challenged only in the rarest of the rare case. As per the material on record, no such circumstance which can be classified within the phrase "rarest of the rare case" has emerged so as to warrant interference by this Court. On the above premise, they therefore, contend that no good ground is made out for interference by this Court in present criminal revision. As such, the challenge to the framing of charge order dated 04.07.2023 is be negated by this Court.
11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
12. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant in opposition to this criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist. Furthermore, upon perusal of the order impugned, this Court finds that Court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor has it exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.
13. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
14. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Imtiyaz
