Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2763 (ALL)

Anil Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2019-12-12

ANIRUDDHA SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA. Perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by Anil Kumar against the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 150 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No./F.I.R. No. 531 of 2011 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bazar Khala Shukla, District C.S. Nagar/Amethi whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 3. In a nutshell, facts of the case are that F.I.R. was lodged on 19.9.2011 against four accused persons namely Anil Kumar (husband), Ram Jas, Dileep Kumar and mother-in-law (wife of Ram Jas) alleging that the marriage of deceased Raj Kumari (daughter of complainant) was solemnized with Anil Kumar 14 months back, they demanded additional dowry from the deceased for which the deceased was being tortured by them and on 17.9.2011 they killed her by administering poison. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Danbahadur (father of deceased) was examined and cross-examined as P.W.1 by prosecution. Later on, application for cross-examination of P.W.1 was moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C which was rejected. Hence this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that impugned order is illegal, against facts and law and without applying judicial mind. F.I.R. was lodged after two days of incident without explaining delay after thought and with due legal consultation. There is no evidence against the revisionist. 5. Learned AGA opposed the contention of learned counsel for revisionist and submitted that order passed by the Court concerned is legal and revision has no force. 6. From the perusal of record, it transpires that during trial an application 41-B was moved by the revisionist Anil Kumar with the prayer to summon P.W.1 Danbahadur for cross-examination again. On application 41-B objection was filed stating therein that cross-examination of P.W. 1 Dan Bahadur was done by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist in length and for delaying tactic, this application was moved. On application 41-B objection was filed stating therein that cross-examination of P.W. 1 Dan Bahadur was done by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionist in length and for delaying tactic, this application was moved. After hearing both the parties, impugned order was passed and it was held that material cross-examination was done by learned counsel for the revisionist and other things may be proved at the time of producing evidence and documents in defence after recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., application was dismissed. 7. From the perusal of record, it also transpires that cross-examination of P.W.1 was done by learned counsel for the revisionist (annexed at page no. 41 to 43) and relevant questions were asked. Hence, no prejudice is caused to the revisionist by rejecting the application of revisionist by impugned order. 8. In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, 2009 (65) ACC 607 SC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that rejection order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory order, hence revision is not maintainable. 9. Same view was taken by Allahabad High Court in the case of Asif Hussain Vs. State of U.P. 2007 (57) ACC 1036. 10. The observation made by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Asif Hussain (supra) para 26 is reproduced as under: 26. From what I have stated above I find my self in disagreement with my esteemed brother Hon'ble V.K. Chaturvedi, J. that the order under Section 311 Cr. P.C. is a final order and is a revisable one. In my view it is nothing but an interlocutory order and revision against such an order is barred under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. 11. Moreover, in the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. 12. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 29.11.2019. The view taken by Court below is plausible view, hence no interference is called for by this Court. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. The revision is dismissed at admission stage. 14. Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.