Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1377 (ALL)

Mamta and another v. State of U. P. and another

2010-04-27

YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.; - Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of summoning of the applicants for their trial in S.T. No. 278 of 2009 State vs. Dina Nath Shukla & others for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Dowry Prohibition, passed by Upper Session Judge/F.T.C. 3rd Basti, on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. submitted on behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court. As per prosecution case a report was lodged against both the applicants and their Father, Mother and Brother, by father of the deceased for the offence under Section 498-A, 304-B IPC read with Section Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegations that they all have committed the offence of Dowry death by putting her on fire, as their demand of Rs. 25, 000/- and Jewellery was not being fulfilled by the informant and the deceased. ON this report, a case was registered. After investigation a Charge-sheet was submitted against the three accused Dinanath, Vinay Kumar and Smt. Lalmati, Sasur, husband and Mother-in-Law of the deceased respectively and both the applicants were let of by the Investigating Officer. After taking cognizance in the matter, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Session where all the three persons were charged to face the trial. They have denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded no guilty. Trial of the accused persons was started in the court concerned. Statement of P.W. 1 Kripa Shanker, Father of the deceased was recorded and at length on behalf of the accused persons, he was cross-examined. At this stage an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the prosecution with the averments that there is evidence on record that both the applicants who are real Sister of the husband of the deceased have also harassed and tortured the victim for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and she was also beaten by them and she was done to death by all the accused persons including the applicants for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry. 3. 3. Giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial court was of the opinion that trial of both the applicants is necessary for the offence along with the accused persons of the case so orders were passed for summoning them. Aggrieved by this order, the instant Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed. 4. The main grounds for challenging the order of the trial court are that only to harass and pressurize with malafide intention, this application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was moved. By a detail investigation the investigating Officer had not found their involvement in the matter. Applicant Mamta is minor, aged about 15 years and other applicant Smt. Geeta is a married lady, lives in another district. They were not going to be benefited in any manner with the alleged demand. Learned Session Judge has passed the impugned order, illegally, arbitrarily and without application of judicial mind. No specific role has been assigned to any of them in the occurrence. General allegations are there in the FIR and in the statement of the witnesses. Deceased was under depression because she was not having any issue and she had committed suicide. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA argued that it may be correct that one applicant is minor and the another is a married lady and are Nanad of the deceased but undisputely, they are real Sisters of the husband of the deceased and are covered with the parameter of near relatives of the husband detailed under Section 304-B IPC. Where there are allegations that Father, Mother and Sister of the husband and husband of the deceased have harassed and tortured the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and they both are covered in the term of near relatives of the husband and on the same allegations and evidnce also Father, Mother are facing trial for the offences referred above and there names were mentioned in the in the FIR and also stated in his on oath statement by the Father of the decease who is also informant of the case, if the order of their trial along with the accused of the case for the offence is passed on the application of the prosecution, there is no illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order. It was further argued by the learned AGA that without any sufficient cause, Investigating Officer has let off, these applicants in the Charge-sheet. 6. Giving detail and sufficient reasons, learned trial court has passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality, invalidity and impropriety in the impugned order passed by the trial court. In view of the provisions of Section 113-A, 113-B of the Evidence Act and also under the Provisions of Section 498-A and 304-B IPC where there is a presumption clause involvement of both the applicants also is clear. Accused persons including the applicants have liberty to rebut the presumption of law after adducing their defence evidence. Learned counsel for the applicants cited Law 2009(8) JT 219 Ram Singh Vs. Ram Niwas. Facts and circumstances of the case before the Apex Court are totally different from the facts of the present case. Case before the apex Court was under Section 302 IPC where there was no such presumption case, as in the present case under Section 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence and Section 498-A, 304-B IPC. 7. It is established law that in inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. powers has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the test specifically laid down in the statute itself. Authority of the court exist for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of process leading to justice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking the inherent jurisdiction/power in absence of specific provisions in the statute. 8. In view of the above all discussions, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Application has no force and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.