High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Gajala v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 832 of 2001  RD-AH 12529 (20 July 2007)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 832 OF 2001
State of U.P. & another---------------Opposite parties
Hon'ble S.C. Nigam, J
Smt. Gajala has preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by Sri Ramesh Gupta, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonbhadra in Case No. 2158 of 2000 (Seema Baano vs. Saiyad Sarfraz & others) under Sections 498A, 504,506 IPC & under Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Obra, district Sonbhadra by which the acused Saiyad Sarfraj Ahmad, Parveen, Aijaz Ahmad, Raza Ahmad, Gajala (revisionist) and Shahjade were summoned under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act to face their trial.
The brief facts giving rise to this criminal revision are that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Seema Baano was married with Saiyad Aijaz Ahmad son of Saiyad Sarfraz Ahmad resident of Rzanagar Khajuri Colony, House No. 58/415, Varanasi on 30.01.2000. The accused Shahjade son of Saiyad Ahmad Ali resident of Dikori Mohal, House No. 52/12 Ardali Bazar, P.S. Cantonment, district Varanasi was annoyed with this marriage. He is Mama of her husband Aijaz Ahmad. He used to misguide in laws of respondent no. 2 Smt. Seema Baano on the pretext of getting less dowry in the marriage of respondent no. 2 Smt. Seema Baano with Aijaz Ahmad. It is alleged that the husband of respondent no. 2 Smt. Seema Baano and her relatives used to torture and harass Smt. Seema Baano for bringing less dowry. They also used to demand Rs.20,000/- in cash, Fridge, Washing Machine and Dining Table. The respondent no. 2 was also threatened to arrange the dowry failing which she would be done to death by setting her ablaze. The parents of respondent no. 2 were not in such financial position to arrange the additional demand of dowry made by her husband and his relatives. The revisionist Smt. Gajala is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of respondent no. 2. It is further alleged that the accused Shahjade on 12.6.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. brought the proposal for the marriage of the husband of respondent no. 2 which was opposed by the respondent no. 2. On such opposition, the husband of respondent no. 2 and his relatives had beaten respondent no. 2 by kicks and fists. The accused Shahjade, the mama of husband of respondent no. 2 and the father of her husband made exhortation to kill the respondent no. 2 by setting her ablaze. The respondent no. 2 raised alarm, which attracted the attention of neighbours who saved her. The accused Shahjade, the mama of her husband carried her to the Obra and threatened her that she might be killed if she did not arrange for the additional demand of dowry so demanded by the accused. She was also threatened that her husband would be remarried in case, she failed to bring the additional dowry so demanded.
The statement of respondent no. 2/complainant Smt. Seema Baano was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also recorded the statements of Ainuddin and Mohd. Hussain under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Sri Ainuddin is the father of respondent no. 2.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the statement on oath of the complainant and of her witnesses. After considering such statements, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate formed the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2001 and summoned the accused persons to face their trial under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act including the revisionist Smt. Gajala.
I have heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. I did not get the opportunity of hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, as none was present on behalf of the revisionist on the date of hearing of this revision.
It has been pleaded by the revisionist in the memo of revision that she is a Pardanaseen lady and is living with her husband in her matrimonial home. She has never demanded any dowry from respondent no. 2 nor she has anything to do with the family of her parents or brother Aijaz Ahmad, the husband of respondent no. 2. It has been further pleaded that the husband of respondent no. 2, Aijaz Ahmad on 19.10.2000, had divorced the respondent no. 2. It has been pleaded that the complaint has been filed by respondent no. 2 in order to humiliate and harass the revisionist, her parents and other relatives. All these points could be raised by the revisionist during the trial before the learned Magistrate.
After examining the record, I am satisfied that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has followed the procedure of complaint case given in Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The learned Magistrate after considering statements on oath of the complainant and of the witness formed the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. He Accordingly issued the process against the accused. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in impugned order dated 15.01.2001. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order dated 15.01.2001.
In the end, this criminal revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.