Allahabad High Court
Khusaboo Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97878
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4137 of 2023
Revisionist :- Khusaboo Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramkripal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ramkripal Yadav, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/A.C.J.M., Chandauli in Complaint Case No. 13087 of 2023 (Khusaboo Vs. Ratan Singh), whereby Court below has rejected aforementioned complaint case, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. According ot the learned counsel for revisionist, once the statements of the prosecutrix and her witnesses were recorded under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. then Court below ought to have taken the trial to its logical conclusion. However, the Court below has abruptly terminated the trial in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 203 Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, the modesty of the prosecutrix was repeatedly and deliberately dislodged by the named accused i.e. opposite party-2 on the false promise of marriage. Referring to the following judgments of Supreme Court in (i). Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, (ii). Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1073, (iii). Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108, (iv). Mandar Deepak Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 649 & (v). Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89, he submits that criminal prosecution of an accused for dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix, on account of false promise of marriage can very well be maintained. He, therefore, contends that in view of above, Court below has thus erred in rejecting the complaint filed by the revisionist. Consequently, the order impugned in present criminal revision is liable to be set aside by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. Learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of Court to the middle portion of paragraph 23 of the order impugned at internal page 3 of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 04.07.2023. With reference to above, the learned A.G.A. contends that the prosecutrix has given three different statements. As such, the prosecutrix has remained inconsistent in her statements as noted by Court below. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that since the prosecutrix herself has failed to establish the very story, which she set out to prove against the prospective accused, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing 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 opposite party-2 in opposition to the present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist. Furthermore, upon perusal of the order impugned, this Court does finds that Court below while passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.
8. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2024
Vinay
