Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1450 (ALL)

Sandhya Verma v. State of U. P.

2014-05-05

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2014
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.: - This revision has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 01.02.2014 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly in S.T. 965 of 2013 (State vs. Vishwas Pratap Singh and others) u/s 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act whereby the application seeking discharge was allowed and the alleged accused opposite party No.2 Rajiv Pratap Singh was discharged by the court. 2. Heard Shri Rupesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Hari Keshav Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. Learned A.G.A. has also been heard. 3. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that there was sufficient material available on record to indicate that opposite party no.2 had humiliated the revisionist on the ground of her being of scheduled caste community and that she was also abused by him and therefore the court should have proceeded to frame the charge against him u/s 504 I.P.C. and also u/s 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act. The contention is that the order of discharge is therefore bad in the eyes of law. 4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has argued that even if the alleged assertion of prosecution is taken to be true for the sake of argument at this stage then too there is sufficient material to indicate that the alleged act of humiliation was never done in public view as admittedly to the prosecution the talks to opposite party no.2 are said to have taken place on a telephone. It has also been submitted that even the alleged abuses have not been specified. The contention is that the revisionist was, as per her own admission, carrying on a love affair with one Vishwas Pratap Singh who is said to be the real brother of opposite party No.2. The submission is that the fact that she was having physical carnal relationship with Vishwas Pratap Singh is also an admitted fact to the prosecution. The contention is that as the love affair could not materialise or fructify into marriage, therefore, out of frustration and vengeance she has made a blanket allegation against opposite party No.2 which does not contain any truth at all. The contention is that as the love affair could not materialise or fructify into marriage, therefore, out of frustration and vengeance she has made a blanket allegation against opposite party No.2 which does not contain any truth at all. It has also been submitted that opposite party no.2 is a man of modern outlook and does not believe in caste system and has no objection at all if his brother contracts marriage with the revisionist. But if at the stage of framing of the charge only the allegations made by the prosecution are taken into account then also they do not constitute any offence and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality at all. 5. This Court had the occasion to cogitate upon the facts and circumstances of the case and go through the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar. As per the version of the complainant-revisionist, she was carrying on a love affair with Vishwas Pratap Singh and it continued for about a year. The perusal of the F.I.R. also reveals that she has admitted in no uncertain terms that she was having a physical relationship with him. Her contention is that aforesaid Vishwas Pratap Singh kept on exploiting her sexually even though he had no real intention to contract marriage and therefore at one stage when he was asked by her to do so he talked to his family members about the marriage. Said Vishwas Pratap Singh simply declined later on and told her that it is not possible for him to contract marriage with her. After being so told by her alleged lover, she felt aggrieved and then approached his brother. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has shown to the Court her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The perusal of this statement does not indicate any such thing whatsoever that the alleged conversation which she alleges to have had with opposite party no.2 was in public view at all. Even the request which she allegedly made to Vishwas Pratap Singh whereby she asked him to talk to his family members is also admitted to be a talk on telephone. The only allegation made against opposite party no.2 is that he said that the marriage shall not be possible because both of them belong to different castes, she being a scheduled caste and he being of a general caste (thakur). The only allegation made against opposite party no.2 is that he said that the marriage shall not be possible because both of them belong to different castes, she being a scheduled caste and he being of a general caste (thakur). It is not difficult to discern from the F.I.R. that the complainant-revisionist nurtured the hope to contract marriage with Vishwas Pratap Singh and carried on carnal relationship with him for a prolix period of time. It is also not difficult to understand the emotional shock which she must have received after being told that the marriage shall not be possible. But whatsoever be the grievance against Vishwas Pratap Singh with relation to his deceitful conduct whereby he duped the girl to enter into physical relationship under a false promise of marriage, in so far as the allegation against his brother -opposite party no.2 is concerned, it will be overstretching the facts to bring him also into the mischief of charge. 7. The court below has proceeded to consider the judicial rationale behind several case laws which were cited before it. The impugned order reflects correct application of judicial mind. It is not needed that all the case laws which are multiple in number ought to be cited again herein this order. Suffice it to say that all the case laws have been brought into application in right perspective. The finding given by the trial court that the allegation of humiliation was not in public view also does not seem to suffer from any serious error. After vetting through the entire gamut of facts and law both, the courts proceeded to frame the charge against Vishwas Pratap Singh and deemed it fit to discharge opposite party no.2 for having insulted or humiliated the revisionist. 8. It is not difficult to understand the acute sense of frustration which the revisionist must have undergone after the myth of her love got exploded. Even though the girls admission of premarital sexual relationship with her lover may not sound to have moral sanction of the society and may not appear to be very commendable way to live life yet taking the extreme view that she might have been duped to fall in a trap laid by her lover, the court deemed it fit to frame the charge against Vishwas Pratap Singh. The consent of the revisionist who is employed in regular service and is admittedly a major girl is also an admitted fact and to some extent even the decision to frame the charge against Vishwas Pratap Singh may sound to some as a strict view taken by the court against him. But looking to the settled position of law on the point of sufficiency of material to frame the charge, this court does not doubt the correctness of the order as the ultimate reliability of evidence or the ultimate testimonial worth of the material collected by the Investigating Officer and also the ultimate prospect of conviction in the trial is not to be gone into at the stage of framing of the charge. The court needs to be satisfied only on a prima facie basis about sufficiency of material against accused and is to see whether it constitutes the charged offences or not. But bringing into application the same standard and yardstick with regard to sufficiency of material against opposite party No.2, this Court is of the opinion that there was hardly any such material on the basis of which the court could have proceeded to frame the charge against him. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, error or impropriety which may call for any interference by this Court. 9. The revision being sans merit stands dismissed.