High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mange Ram v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14653 of 2005  RD-AH 5306 (8 November 2005)
Court No. 54
Criminal Misc. Application No. 14653 of 2005.
Mange Ram Vs. State of U.P.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.
Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet arising out of case crime No. 261 of 2001, under Sections 458-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut and also the order issuing non bailable warrant and process under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C.
A first information report was registered at case crime No. 261 of 2001, against the husband Pappu Sharma, father-in-law Raghuvir Singh, applicant Jeth Mange Ram, Dewars Ram Singh and Sanjay and mother-in-law Premwati. The present applicant along with co-accused Ram Singh and Sanjay were not arrested and they have absconded. The session trial commenced against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law as Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2002. The session trial ended in a clear acquittal vide judgment dated 2.9.2005. A copy of the judgment has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. In the order of acquittal, it is clearly stated that on the basis of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has concluded that the deceased Rekha died on account of an accidental fire, her husband and other in-laws in the family tired their best to get her treated for the burn injuries, also her brother tried his best to save her but accident proved to be fatal. In the circumstances, the death of the deceased was held not to be ''dowry death' and the accused were acquitted.
This is an application on behalf of Jeth Mange Ram for quashing the charge sheet as the other co-accused husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law have been given a clear acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut. The submission on behalf of the applicant is that the evidence recorded in the said session trial will be same evidence in the case of the present applicant and since once the court has given a verdict of acquittal, the proceedings, if allowed to continue against the present applicant, will only be a futile exercise and no good result can be expected. It is almost certain that the trial of the present applicant if allowed to continue, will only end in an acquittal and there is no even a remote chance of conviction. In the facts and circumstances and on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (49) ACC, 302. it is prayed that the principle of ''stare decisive' will squarely apply to the facts of the present case and in view of the aforesaid decision, the charge sheet should be quashed. Another decision cited by learned counsel for the applicant is Smt. Begum and others Vs. State of U.P. and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2005 Current Bail Cases, 546.
After hearing the counsel and going through the decisions cited above on behalf of the applicant, it is true that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the present applicant and only if, the trial is allowed to continue, it will amount to wastage of valuable time of the court. The trial, if allowed to continue, will only be a hallow formality of pronouncing the same judgment which has already been passed in respect of other co-accused in the same case crime number and entire exercise will be rendered futile.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings initiated against the applicant arising out of case crime No. 261 of 2001, under Sections 458-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut are quashed. The orders issuing non bailable warrant and process under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. are set aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.