Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1882 (ALL)

Saroj v. State Of U. P.

2024-08-12

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Nand Prabha Shukla, J. 1.Heard Sri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, 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 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) VII, Agra in Case No. 1299 of 2020 and order dated 07.08.2023 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 20, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 254 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 1126 of 2018 (Smt. Saraoj vs. State) under Sections 323 , 504, 506, 342 IPC, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Smt. Saroj is the wife of the First Informant (now dead). After the death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application dated 14.06.2022 to implead her as necessary party to contest the case being the legal heir of the first informant. 4. The matter in brief is that the husband of the petitioner namely Senapati @ Bablu lodged an FIR dated 05.11.2018 under Sections 323 , 504, 506, 342 IPC at Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra against his four brother-in-laws alleging that on 24.10.2018 at around 7.00 A.M. all the four accused entered into his house, hurled abuses and had badly beaten him with lathi and danda and forced him to transfer the property in favour of the petitioner (wife of the first informant). At the time of the incident, the wife did not come forward to save the informant who was dragged and abducted in a vehicle (Duster Car) and was confined in a room and was beaten badly. They captivated him inside their house for three days but somehow the informant escaped and saved his life. 5. During investigation, the first informant died on 15.4.2019. After the investigation, all the four accused were charge-sheeted on 27.8.2019 and cognizance was taken by the concerned Magistrate on 18.11.2020. 6. In order to pursue the matter, the petitioner being wife of the deceased-informant moved an application dated 14.6.2022 to contest the case on behalf of the first informant/deceased-husband as she was his legal heir. However, the said application was rejected on 31.8.2022. 7. 6. In order to pursue the matter, the petitioner being wife of the deceased-informant moved an application dated 14.6.2022 to contest the case on behalf of the first informant/deceased-husband as she was his legal heir. However, the said application was rejected on 31.8.2022. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision which was also rejected on 07.8.2023. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that petitioner being the wife of the deceased informant had right to contest the case and should be arrayed as necessary party. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. defining the word ' victim ' which means "a person who has suffered any loss or, injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression 'victim' includes his or her guardian or legal heir." 10. It has been asserted that after the death of the informant/husband, the wife being the immediate relative and legal heir comes within the purview of the victim and is, therefore, entitled to be arrayed in place of the first informant to contest the case. 11. The controversy raised is whether the word 'victim' in Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. encompasses the wife (widow) who is a legal heir of the deceased and entitled to inherit the property of the deceased under the law applicable for inheritance or would encompass any person who had suffered any loss or injury caused by reasons of the act or omission for which the accused persons has been charged. 12. However, the said issue has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rupendra Singh vs. State of Tripura and another reported in 2017 (13) SCC 612 , Para 10 where it has been observed that the widow of the deceased comes within the definition of "victim" as incorporated in Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner/wife who is the widow of a deceased husband can contest the case after the death of an informant/husband. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner/wife who is the widow of a deceased husband can contest the case after the death of an informant/husband. 14. The instant matter needs to be evaluated with a different approach as the accused named in the FIR are the real brothers of the petitioner/wife and the FIR reveals that at the time of the incident, the petitioner-wife did not come forward to save her husband when attacked by her four real brothers with lathi and danda. It also transpires that the first informant was put under duress and was confined in their house for about three days and was forced to transfer his property in favour of the petitioner/wife. 15. In the charge-sheet dated 27.8.2019, the first informant/husband was the prosecution witness but the petitioner/wife was not made a prosecution witness. 16. It also transpires from the records that the deceased-husband was administered poison at some point of time due to which he died on 15.4.2019. The fidelity of the petitioner/wife was doubtful and is not trustworthy. 17. The petitioner/wife is inclined to get the matter decided in favour of her four real brothers who are named accused and unscrupulously wants herself to be arrayed in place of first informant/deceased husband as a legal heir to contest the case. 18. Accordingly, from the facts and circumstances, it can be safely concluded that though the petitioner/wife is the legal heir and can contest the case after the death of her husband/first informant but as the petitioner/wife has not suffered any loss or injury rather she herself instigated her four real brothers to commit the offence. Therefore, she does not come within the purview of victim as defined under Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the claim of the petitioner/wife is not sustainable and is, accordingly, rejected. 19. In light of the above discussion, the Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. There is no illegality in the order impugned. The matter requires no interference. 20. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.