Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2913 (ALL)

Srichandra Mishra v. State of U. P.

2016-08-23

SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT Shamsher Bahadur Singh,J. Heard Sri Raghunath Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Suyesh Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learssned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. By way of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants are challenging impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 1833 of 2014 (Smt. Rajni Versus Srichandra Mishra and others) under Sections 498-A, 323,504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur, whereby learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants to face trial for the commission of aforesaid offences and also against order dated 16.6.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Sitapur, whereby Criminal Revision No.74 of 2016 preferred by applicants was also dismissed. Admittedly marriage of respondent no.2, Smt. Rajni was solemnized on 7.6.2010 with Dheeraj Mishra son of applicant no.1, Srichandra Mishra. Unfortunately, Dheeraj Mishra died on 17.6.2014 and thereafter complaint case was filed against the applicants who are father, mother and rest family members of deceased Dheeraj Mishra, wherein it has been stated that after passing of few period of marriage, the applicants demanded Rs.50,000/- cash from the parents of respondent no.2 and when illegal demand was not fulfilled by the parents, husband of respondent no.2 left native place and went to Raipur, Chhattishgarh and started living after earning his livelihood as labourer. In year 2013, Dheeraj Mishra became ill and came back to native place along with his wife, the family members did not cooperate in the treatment of late Dheeraj Mishra. Parents of the respondent no.2 helped her in treatment of Dheeraj Mishra and ultimately on 17.6.2014 he died. After death of husband, applicants started to treat her cruelly for demand of dowry and also to create such a situation whereby respondent no.2,Smt. Rajni has no option but to leave the house along with her son. In support of allegations made in the complaint, respondent no.2 examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and PW 1, Ram Naresh and PW 2, Smt. Sushila Pandey under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after hearing learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perusal of material on record, summoned applicants to face trial for the offences punishable under aforesaid sections by order dated 18.12.2014. The applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2016 against the order passed by Magistrate concerned which, too, was dismissed on 16.6.2016 by reasoned and speaking order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sitapur. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated and summoned on account of property dispute. If Dheeraj Mishra has any property, respondent no.2 being his wife and having a minor son, is legally entitled to inherit the property to that extent. Till date no step has been taken by respondent no. 2 to demand her share. Learned counsel for the applicants could not answer on repeated query of this Court that on what basis he is saying that on account of property dispute, the complaint was filed and applicants have been summoned. In view of above discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned orders. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.