Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA 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


Rajesh Kumar Sharma And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 15776 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6592 (29 November 2005)

 

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

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Heard Sri Tapan Ghosh, learned counsel for the accused applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 5.9.1998 passed by C.J.M., Farrukhabad and the order dated 13.9.2005 passed by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Farrukhabad. By the order dated 5.9.1998 learned C.J.M. Directed to summon the accused persons under Sections 498-A, 304 B and 201 IPC in  Case Crime No. 142 of 1994. By the order dated 13.9.2005, the revision filed against this order was dismissed.

Brief facts of the Case are that the opposite party no. 2 Brahmanand is father of the deceased Smt. Laxmi Devi, who was married to accused applicant no. 1 Rajesh Kumar about four years prior to the incident. The complainant lodged a report at P.S. alleging that his daughter was killed by her in-laws (accused applicants) in the night of 28/29-5-1994 and they also disposed the dead body. After investigation final report was submitted in the matter. Against that final report complainant filed protest petition and also examined himself as P.W.-1, Ramteerth P.W-2, Smt. Sudha P.W.-3, Saleem Khan P.W.-4 and Ramshankar P.W.-5.

Learned Magistrate after considering the statements of the witnesses found that there was prima facie case against the accused persons and he rejected the final report and directed to summon the accused persons taking cognizance in the matter, by order dated 5.9.1998. It appears that against that order the accused filed criminal revision but the same was not pressed. Thereafter a fresh criminal revision was filed on 21.4.2001 along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and also the revision. Against that order one of the accused Smt. Shyama Devi filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 11714 of 2004 which was allowed by order dated 5.11.2004 by this Court and the case was remanded and the learned Revisional Judge was directed to decide the revision on merits. Thereafter the revision has been decided by the impugned order dated 13.9.2005 and the summoning order dated 5.9.1998 has been confirmed.

Learned counsel for the accused applicants has contended that impugned orders are not legal as no reason has been given by the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance and summoning the accused persons. He has also contended that although learned Trial Court has right to disregard the final report but should have given reasons for differing from it. But the learned A.G.A. has contented that learned Magistrate has summoned the accused persons as he found a prima facie case against accused persons and no illegality has been committed by him.

At the stage of summoning of the accused a detailed discussion of the  evidence is not required and the Magistrate has to see if prima facie case is made out against the accused persons or not.

In the instant case, the complainant examined himself and his witnesses and the learned Magistrate found that there was prima facie case against the accused applicant and therefore he rejected the final report and directed to summon the accused persons. Learned Revisional Judge has given reasons in support of his order and he has mentioned that the witnesses have stated about the demand of dowry as well as harassment given by the accused persons. They have also stated about her death on account of dowry. The witnesses Brahmanand is the father of the deceased and Ramteerth is brother of the deceased. Witness Saleem also corroborated the prosecution case. The complainant had also given an application to the District Magistrate alleging that the life of his daughter was in danger. Therefore the contention as made by the learned counsel for the accused applicants that the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge did not give any reasons, cannot be accepted.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders and this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 29.11.2005

RKS/15776/05


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.