Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2597 (ALL)

Fatma v. State of U. P.

2015-08-25

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. This petition is directed against an order dated 3 February 2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar in Complaint Case No. 1435/9 of 2011 refusing to issue process against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 as well as the order dated 8 August 2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 73 of 2014, dismissing the revision. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint on 18 August 2010 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Muzaffarnagar alleging commission of offence against several persons under section 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the petitioner and her witnesses issued summons against Furkan Akhtar, the husband of the petitioner, Smt. Rasheedan and Aslam, her in-laws, while she refused to proceed against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner, thereafter, made an application purporting to be under section 319 Cr. P.C. making a request to proceed against respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The learned Magistrate by order dated 3 February 2014 held that still there is no prima facie evidence to proceed against these persons and rejected the application. It is held that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were not residing along with Smt. Fatima - petitioner at her matrimonial house and, thus, the allegation against them regarding the withholding of stridhan by them, is wholly baseless. It has been further held that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 can not be proceeded against on mere suspicion without prima facie evidence on record against them. In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado Versus CBI, (2000) 3 SCC 262 . Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 8 August 2014. The Revisional Court concurred with the view taken by the learned Magistrate that there is no prima facie evidence to proceed against respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 3. I have perused the impugned orders and find no illegality in the view taken by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any illegality therein, except for his contention that in the statement made by the petitioner and her witnesses under section 244 & 246 Cr. P.C., it was stated that respondent Nos. 3. I have perused the impugned orders and find no illegality in the view taken by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out any illegality therein, except for his contention that in the statement made by the petitioner and her witnesses under section 244 & 246 Cr. P.C., it was stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are also in league with the other accused persons. The learned Magistrate has considered the statement of the petitioner and her witnesses and has come to a definite conclusion that there is no prima facie evidence on record to proceed against them and the allegations are based on mere suspicion, which is not sufficient. 4. In Geeta Mehrotra and another Versus State of U.P. : 2013 (80) ACC 185, the Supreme Court has held that in matrimonial disputes, there is a growing tendency to implicate the entire family, by making mere casual references to their names, without specific instances. In the instant case, the Courts below have recorded specific finding that the allegations against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are not specific, and are merely based on suspicion. 5. Further, this Court finds that the revision was dismissed on 8 August 2014 and the instant petition has been filed after more than one year, without any explanation for the delay. 6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.