Allahabad High Court
Smt Prinsi @ Gudiya vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 2 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154458
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6586 of 2024
Smt Prinsi @ Gudiya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Nisha Chouhan, Shailendra Singh Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Gulab Chandra, Rupesh Kumar Singh
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aman Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 Kannauj in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2024 (Prinsi @ Gudiya Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors.) as well as order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Nayayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Tehsil Tirwa, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 29 of 2021 filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station- Thathiya, District- Kannauj.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short "D.V. Act") before the Gram Nayalaya on 8.9.2014 with the allegation that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 Arvind according to the Hindu Rites and Rituals and in the said marriage sufficient articles and cash were given as dowry but the her in-laws including her husband were not satisfied with the said dowry and demanded a four wheeler and also Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchasing of a plot. It is further alleged that on 13.08.2009, the family members of her in-laws committed marpeet upon her for non fulfillment of additional demand of dowry and also poured kerosene upon her, but due to the intervention of the neighbours, her life was saved. Thereafter, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, and since then, she has been residing at her parental home as on date. In the proceedings under Section 12 (c) of D.V. Act, she has also filed applications under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of D.V. Act. The court below, after considering the evidence led during course of trial, came to the conclusion that no incident of domestic violence had been occurred as alleged by the revisionist and rejected the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, a criminal appeal has been preferred by the revisionist which has also been rejected by the appellant court vide order dated 08.10.2024. Hence the present revision has been filed before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court without applying its judicial mind rejected the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, when as a matter fact, the domestic violence has been committed by the private opposite parties on 13.8.2009 with the revisionist and ultimately, she has been thrown out from her matrimonial home after committing marpeet with her. However, aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court and on the wrong appreciation of evidence, her application has been rejected.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private opposite parties as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitted that on 13.08.2009, neither any incident of marpeet took place on the said date nor any First Information Report was lodged in this regard by the revionist. It is further submitted that no medical evidence has been brought on record to support the allegation of maarpeet as made by the revisionist. It is next submitted that the revisionist has stated herself that she does not know as to what averments have been made in her affidavit and she also denied her signature which has been appended in the affidavit of her examination-in-chief before the trial court. On the above premise, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the revisionist.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. During course of arguments, it is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has not lodged any FIR against the private opposite parties regarding alleged incident dated 13.8.2009 which has been mentioned in her application under Section 12 D.V. Act. It is also admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that there is no injury report qua the revisionist regarding the alleged incident available on record.
9. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded categorical finding of facts on the above issue. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.
10. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
11. In the judgment of the trial court dated 04.05.2024 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, it has been recorded that in the cross-examination of the revisionist, she has admitted that she does not know about the averments made in the affidavit filed before the trial court and she has also denied her signature appended on the affidavit in respect of her examination-in-chief filed before the trial court.
12. Keeping in view of the above, the trial court has come to the conclusion that actually no incident had taken place on the alleged date i.e. 13.8.2009 meaning thereby that no domestic violence has been committed by the private parties upon the revisionist as no such independent oral as well as documentary evidence has been brought on record before the trial court. The appellate court has also rejected the appeal filed by the revisionist while affirming the order of trial court. In the considered opinion of the Court, both impugned orders passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or incorrect in the eyes of law. The findings recorded by the trial are passed on appreciation of evidence led during the course of trial before the trial court.
13. There is no perversity or infirmity found in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court that has been affirmed by the appellate court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
14. The criminal revision is devoid of merits, and is, accordingly dismissed.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 2, 2025
Akbar
