Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1783 (ALL)

Suman Maurya v. State Of UP

2024-07-31

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3; learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "I. Set aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No.246 of 2023 (Suman Maurya v. State of U.P. and others) and impugned order dated 15.05.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Complaint No.1034 of 2017 (Suman v. Subhash and others) (Annexure no.1 and 2 to this petition). II. Direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur to exercise his discretionary power and reconsider the complaint and statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate order for summon the respondent nos.2 and 3 including Subhash Chandra Maurya for offence under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint No.1034 of 2017 (Suman v. Subhash and others) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. III. Issue such other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case." 3. The matter in brief is that on 21.9.2017, the petitioner-Suman Maurya wife of Subashchandra Maurya lodged a Complaint No.1034 of 2017 against her husband and the opposite party nos.2, 3 for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sigramau Road District Jaunpur in the Court of C.J.M., Jaunpur alleging that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the accused Subhash Chandra Maurya on 19.05.2014, but the in-laws and the husband demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-and due to non fulfillment of the same, the petitioner was tortured mentally and physically and on 1.7.2016, she was kicked from the house after snatching her Stridhan. 4. It has further been submitted that during the proceedings, the statement of the complainant/petitioner was recorded on oath under Section 200 I.P.C. wherein the role was attributed to all the three named accused. In the statements of the witnesses recorded on oath under Section 202, Cr.P.C. the witnesses P.W.-1 Avnish Kumar and P.W.-2 Brijesh Kumar Maurya attributed general role to each of the accused. 5. In the statements of the witnesses recorded on oath under Section 202, Cr.P.C. the witnesses P.W.-1 Avnish Kumar and P.W.-2 Brijesh Kumar Maurya attributed general role to each of the accused. 5. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court vide order dated 15.5.2018has summoned only Subhash Chandra Maurya (husband) to face the trial under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and has dropped the name of the opposite party no.2 and 3. 6. Against the order dated 15.05.2018, the petitioner/complainant moved an Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which was allowed by the court below vide order dated 24.11.2022. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed a Criminal Revision No.5309 of 2022 (Tirathraj and another v. State of U.P. and another) before the Hon'ble High Court whereby vide order dated 16.1.2023 the revision was allowed holding that the revisionist/opposite party nos.2 and 3 could not have been summoned by the Magistrate, especially at the stage of 244 Cr.P.C. 8. The petitioner thereafter at the belated stage preferred a Criminal Revision No.l46 of 2023 challenging the summoning order dated 15.5.2018 which was rejected on 07.06.2024 affirming the impugned order dated 15.5.2018. 9. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court had not considered the statements on oath of the complainant/petitioner and the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and had failed to summon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to face the trial. It has also been submitted that there was sufficient material to proceed against the respondent nos.2 and 3. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is apparent that on the basis of the statement of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., Subhash Chandra Maurya (husband of the petitioner) is already facing trial. There is no injury report/medical report to substantiate the statements of the complainant and witnesses. Only general and sweeping allegations have been made against the respondent nos.2 and 3. There is no iota of truth in the allegations and a casual reference has been made with the sole object of falsely implicating the family members in a matrimonial dispute. 11. There is no injury report/medical report to substantiate the statements of the complainant and witnesses. Only general and sweeping allegations have been made against the respondent nos.2 and 3. There is no iota of truth in the allegations and a casual reference has been made with the sole object of falsely implicating the family members in a matrimonial dispute. 11. The order dated 15.05.2018 dropping the names of the respondents was challenged by the petitioners which was also rejected on 07.06.2024. 12. It has been often noticed that false cases are registered under Section 498-A I.P.C. in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and with a oblique motive. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 , this Court observed as under:- "19. coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in the FIR, but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them over looking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding." 13. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 has expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A I.P.C. and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute. The Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. It was also held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. In a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 14. It was also held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. In a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations made against the respondent nos.2 and 3 have mere casual reference and are baseless and are wholly insufficient to make out a case against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 15. There is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference required. 16. The petition is accordingly dismissed.