Allahabad High Court
Vinita And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:180004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2184 of 2020
Vinita And 5 Others
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Vivek Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, G.A., Jitendra Singh
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Jintendra Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 and Learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bijnor in Sessions Case No. 340 of 2020, State v. Vinita and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 454 of 2018, under Section 195, I.P.C. against revisionist No.1 and under Section 195A I.P.C. against revisionists nos. 2 to 6, P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the discharge application of the revisionists herein.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 454 of 2018 under Section 420, 467, 468, 195A, 195 and 388 I.P.C. at Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor against the revisionists. Against the said F.I.R., the revisionists herein approached this Court by way of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 515 of 2019 with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. This Court, by order dated 10.01.2019, found that a cognizable office is made out as per the allegation mentioned in the First Information Report, however, a relief was given to the revisionists that they shall not be arrested in the present case till submission of police report filed under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet under Section 195 I.P.C. against the revisionist no.1 and under Section 195A against the revisionist nos. 2 to 6.
4. Thereafter, the revisionists filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 24293 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 28.06.2019, disposed of the matter with liberty to the revisionists herein to file a discharge application before the Trial Court. Pursuant to the said order, the revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 12.03.2020, dismissed the discharge application of the revisionists. Hence, this revision has been filed.
5. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that marriage of the revisionist no.1 Smt. Vinita was solemnized with the brother of opposite party no.2 on 28.11.2017. Her father has given sufficient dowry in the marriage but her in-laws were not happy with it and they started torturing her, hurled abusive words and also demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry. Thereafter, she started living with her parental house. After some time, opposite party no.2 came to the house of the revisionist no.1 and told her that she can live with his family. Thereafter, he tried to outrage her modesty. On objection, Bheem, Maya and Puran Singh came to the spot and saved her, regarding which, she made a complaint to the Police Station. She has also filed a case bearing Case No. 94 of 2018, under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the opposite party no.2 and his family members. As a counterblast, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against the revisionists.
6. It is further submitted that alleged that the incident took place on 28.11.2017 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.09.2018, after the lapse of 10 months and no explanation of delay of filing the F.I.R. has been given. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the matter and without collecting any credible evidence, submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionists under Section 195 and 195A I.P.C. The revisionist filed a discharge application before the Trial Court but the learned Trial Court without considering the facts of the case, dismissed the said application, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Counsel for opposite party no.2 that the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the discharge application. The Investigating Officer conducted fair investigation and on the basis of collected evidence, he filed a charge-sheet under Section 195, I.P.C. against revisionist No.1 and under Section 195A I.P.C. against revisionists nos. 2 to 6. It is further submitted that the revisionists, on the basis of false and fabricated evidence, got an F.I.R. registered against the opposite party no.2 at P.S. Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 323, 504, 506, 354-A, 376, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act.
8. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that learned Trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order.
9. I have heard the rival submissions of both the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record.
10. In the present case, opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against revisionists and on an order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor, F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 454 of 2018 under Section 420, 467, 468, 195A, 195 and 388 I.P.C. at Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor was registered. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the revisionist under Section 195, I.P.C. against revisionist No.1 and under Section 195A I.P.C. against revisionists nos. 2 to 6.
11. It is also admitted fact that the revisionists herein approached this Court by way of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 515 of 2019 with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. This Court, by order dated 10.01.2019, found that a cognizable office is made out as per the allegation mentioned in the First Information Report, however, a relief was given to the revisionists that they shall not be arrested in the present case till submission of police report filed under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C.
12. It is also admitted that after filing of charge-sheet revisionists filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 24293 of 2019 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 28.06.2019, disposed of the matter with liberty to the revisionists herein to file a discharge application before the Trial Court. Pursuant to the said order, the revisionists filed a discharge application before the Trial Court and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 12.03.2020, dismissed the discharge application of the revisionists.
13. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge, the concerned Court will look after the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and the defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the time of framing of charge. In case, the discharge application is filed by any accused person, the Court will decide whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused person or not and, in case, a prima facie case is made out against the accused person, the application will be dismissed. In the present case, learned Trial Court has clearly and categorically stated in the impugned order that a prima facie case is made out against the revisionist. It is also relevant to mention that this Court, at the time of deciding Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 515 of 2019, has also opined that a prima facie case of cognizable offence is made out against the accused.
14. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed.
15. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
October 9, 2025
Vijay
