High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Km. Gudiya Singh v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 3928 of 2004  RD-AH 16298 (4 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Crl. Misc. Application no. 3928 of 2004
Km. Gudiya Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicant.
State of U.P. And another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp.Parties..
This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings of Criminal Case no. 9308A of 2002, State Vs. Gudiya, under sections 498A, 304-B, I.P.C. and ??, Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that on 21.8.2002 one Shiv Pujan Singh lodged a F.I.R. at police station Cantt. Varanasi with these allegations that he resides at village Itimha police station Narkiganj district Rohtas, Bihar and marriage of his daughter Pushpa Singh had taken place with Anoj Kumar Singh son of Kashi Nath Singh resident of varansi about two years ago. Anoj Kumar Singh, Kashi Nath Singh, his wife and elder daughter were not satisfied with the dowry and were committing atrocities upon Pusha Devi. Shiv Pujan Singh also received information that Anoj Kumar Singh had illicit relationship with another lady and on inquiry he found that the allegation was true. On 20.2.2002 he received a telephonic call from an unknown person that Pushpa Devi had been killed. Then he came to Varanasi alongwith the family members and found that Pusha Devi had died and so he was confident that above four accused persons had murdered Pushpa Devi. Then he went to the police station and lodged the report.
The police after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet against Kashi Nath Singh, his wife Smt. Lal Pari and Anuj alias Anoj Kumar Singh. Since Gudiya Singh could not be traced out at that time and she was allegedly absconding, no charge sheet was submitted against her at that time. The case was committed to the court of sessions where accused Kashi Nath Singh, Lal Pari Devi and Anoj Kumar Singh were tried by the Addl. Seessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Varanasi. All the above named accused were charged under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. This case was tried as S.T.no. 476/2003, State Vs. Kashi Nath Singh and others.
The prosecution produced Shiv Pujan Singh, father of the deceased, as P.W.1, Smt. Radhika Singh, mother of the deceased as P.W.2 and Rakesh Kumar Singh her brother as P.W.3. All these three witnesses turned hostile before the trial court and denied the allegations of demand of dowry and atrocities upon Smt. Pushpa Devi. The cause of her death could not be ascertained in the post mortem report and so her viscera was preserved but no poison was found in her viscera also. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was, therefore, of the view that charges under sections 498A, 304B as well as section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were not proved against the accused persons because there was neither any evidence of demand of dowry nor of any atrocity in connection with that demand and even this fact was also not proved that Smt. Pushpa Devi died unnatural death. He, therefore, acquitted the accused persons.
After acquittal of the above accused persons, Km. Gudiya Singh was traced out and charge sheet was submitted against her also. Thereafter she moved this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above charge sheet.
It has been alleged that the above sessions trial against co-accused persons has resulted into acquittal as there was no evidence against them, so no fruitful purpose is going to be served by trial of the applicant for the above offences and so further proceedings of criminal case no. 9308A of 2002 should be quashed.
Notice of this application were issued to the State as well as to the complainant Shiv Pujan Singh, O.P. no. 2., but no counter affidavit was filed either by the State or by Shiv Pujan Singh, O.P. no.2.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel for O.P. no.2.
The learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the rulings of this Court in 'Virendra Pawar Vs. State of U.P. and another' 2003 (47 ) ACC 1034, 'Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo Vs. State of U.P.' 2005(51) ACC 955, 'Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P.' 2005(53) ACC 429, 'Darshan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.'2006(54) ACC 165 and 'Habib Vs. State of U.P.' 2007 (1) UP Cr.R.727.
I have carefully gone through all these rulings. It is to be seen that in all these cases trial of some accused persons had resulted into acquittal for want of evidence and so in view of the acquittal orders it was held that no fruitful purpose was going to be served by trial of the remaining co-accused persons, who had not been tried together with those accused who had already been acquitted and so the proceedings of the criminal cases pending against the remaining accused persons were quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C.. The above rulings apply with full force to the fact of the present case also.
The position in this way is that the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of criminal case no. 9308A/2002, State Vs.Gudiya, under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi are hereby quashed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.