Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHARDA PRASAD AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sharda Prasad And Others v. State Of U.P.And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 9223 of 1985 [2007] RD-AH 3321 (27 February 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 (Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No. 9223 of 1985

***

1. Sharda Prasad son of Kamta Prasad.

2. Smt. Sheo Kumari wife of Sharda Prasad.

3. Ghan Shyam son of Sharda Prasad

All Residents of Town and Police Station

Baberu District Banda. ..........  ...Accused- Applicants.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Ram Kripal son ofSri Anant Ram,

Resident of Village Dingwat, Police Station Pailani,

District Banda. . ...... Opp.parties

*************

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant challenges the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused  under Section 302 I.P.C. passed  by the Munsif Magistrate, Banda.

2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

3. A married lady Bimla  died in the house of her father-in-law  in Quasba and Police Station Baberu District Banda on 21.4.1982. She died because of burn  injuries. Initially a report about her death was   lodged by her mother-in-law Smt. Sheo Kumari on the same date, stating therein that she put herself aflame because she was not being allowed to go to her father's house immediately as she desired. The investigating officer recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but all supported the theory of  suicide by the lady herself and the investigating officer concluded, as he wanted, that it was a case of suicide and submitted a final report.

4. The Magistrate refused to accept the Final Report  and ordered registration of case in relation to death of the lady.

5. The argument by the counsel for the petitioner is that there was no material before the Magistrate, on the basis whereof, he could decline to accept the final report and order  registration of a case.

6. The first answer to the arguments of the counsel for the applicant is that the next day, father of the deceased lady had lodged another F.I.R. , in which it had been stated that she had been done to death by her  husband. That could provide sufficient justifiable material for the Magistrate to take cognizance and reject the final report.

7. Even assuming the absence of any IInd F.I.R, it needs to be empzsised that the Magistrate could even then take cognizance and reject the final report because the death of a married lady has taken place in suspicious circumstances in her father-in-laws house  and the explanation offered about her death needed tobe judicially examined and it had to be ascertained from the evidence and circumstances whether it was a case of suicide or homicide? It is now well settled that there could be more than one F.I.R. in a case and any subsequent F.I.R. will not be hit of Section 162 Cr.P.C. vide reference Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash and others [ 2005 (1) J.I.C. 109 (S.C.) ].

8. The argument from the side of the counsel for the petitioner that the Magistrate relied on the statement of the father of the deceased lady before taking cognizance , which was not legally justifiable, does not, therefore, arise because as mentioned above, there was a F.I.R. of the father lodged on the next day about the involvement of the accused in the death of the lady.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of  Harkesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, [ 2002 All JIC 49], but that case has no application to the facts of the present case. There the Magistrate did not register a case as a police case but as a complaint case.

10. The counsel for the petitioner also referred to the case of  Radheyshyam  Vs. State of U.P. and another  decided on 22.6.2004 in Crl. Misc. Application No. 5002 of 2004 by  Hon'ble

S.S. Kulshrestha, J of this Court. This case, again, was treated as a complaint case and the petition was allowed on the ground that all prosecution witnesses were not examined by the Magistrate as provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C. because of the case was the one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

11. In the result, there is no substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 26.2.2007

n.u.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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