Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rupesh Sharma & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10593 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14864 (1 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10593 of 2007

Rupesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr,

Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.

This criminal misc. writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 1.11.06, 27.11.06 and 15.5.07 passed by the courts below.

It appears from the facts of the case that an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by O.P. No.2 against all the petitioners in the court below on which an FIR was registered at the concerned police station. After investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police only against Rupesh Sharma. When the trial started, O.P. No.2, the complainant of the case moved an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. that other accused be also summoned to stand trial. On this application the trial court summoned petitioner no.4, Ankit Sharma to stand trial under Section 323, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 20.7.06. Against this order dated 20.7.06 revision was filed by O.P. No.2 as revision no.282/06. This revision was allowed vide order dated 1.11.06 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision according to law. The trial court reconsidered the matter and vide order dated 27.11.06 ordered that petitioners Rupesh Sharma, Ashok Sharma, Uttam Sharma, Ankit Sharma, Poonam Sharma, Sonmati, Kusum Devi, Manju Devi be summoned under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and ?? of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against this order dated 27.11.06 revision no.464/06 was filed, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Ballia vide order dated 15.5.07. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners Ashok Sharma, Uttam Sharma, Poonam Sharma, Sonmati, Kusum Devi and Manju Devi could not be summoned under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, IPC and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act when Rupesh Sharma and Ankit Sharma who were already facing trial were charged only with the offence under Section 323, IPC. It has also been argued that from the evidence on record no offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and ??, D.P. Act is also made out against these persons.

So far as this question is concerned as to whether above persons could be summoned for any other offence except the offence under Section 323, IPC in that regard reference of Section 319 would be relevant. It lays down that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. This provision clearly shows that the case of the proposed accused shall independently be decided irrespective of the case of the accused persons already on trial. For making out a case against the proposed accused and to see as to what offence is made out against them the evidence on which the proposed summoning is based shall be the only consideration. Thus, it cannot be said that the Magistrate was not competent to summon the aforesaid accused under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, IPC and ?? D.P. Act.

Now comes the second argument. It is evident from the record that the above persons were summoned on the statement of O.P. No.2, Usha Devi, which she gave before the trial court. A perusal of this statement shows that it prima facie makes out offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and ?? D.P. Act against the above accused and therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified in summoning them under these offences. The revisional court was also justified in dismissing the revision.

I, therefore, find no merits in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.


T. Sinha.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.