High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7501 of 2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32449 Applicant :- Gyanti Devi Alias Gyanvati Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R P Rajan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging charge-sheets dated 09.09.2024 and 16.09.2024, orders dated 25.09.2024, 18.10.2024 and 09.01.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi
Facts
in Case No. 85780 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mizamurad, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional District Judge (F.T.C. II), Varanasi being Sessions Trial No. 64 of 2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report1 was lodged on 01.08.2024 at 17:09 hours by opposite party no. 2 against five named accused persons including the applicant under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S.2 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, with the allegations that marriage of daughter of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with son of the applicant on 10.05.2023 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Dowry was given by O.P. No. 2 as per his capacity and capability, however, the applicant along with other family members have mentally and physically tortured his daughter. In the night of 22.07.2024 the applicant along with her family members killed his daughter, of which an information was given to him on the next date. The O.P. No. 2 went to FIR 1 2 Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 2 police station, where, after taking his signatures on blank paper he was asked to go her daughter’s in-laws place, ensuring him that they will be reaching at the place of incident. After passage of few days when FIR was not lodged, another application was given, whereafter the present FIR has been lodged. 4. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 09.09.2024 and 16.09.2024, hence the present petition has been preferred by the applicant. 5.
Legal Reasoning
from the aforesaid it is clear that prima facie case is made out against the applicant under the aforesaid sections. It was within seven years of marriage and there are allegations of dowry demand against the applicant. The death is unnatural, therefore, other contentions as raised by learned counsel for the applicant are purely disputed question of fact which cannot be seen by this Court at this stage in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Aryan Singh3 that mini trial cannot be conducted by this Court. Paragraph-10 of the judgment in Aryan Singh (supra) is quoted herein below: “10. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.” 8. As regards the facts that till date the applicant has not been summoned, there is no fault on the part of the Court as the applicant, in anticipation, has already surrendered without waiting for the concerned court to pass appropriate orders as to whether the offence under the 3 (2023) SCC OnLine SC 379 4 relevant sections is made out and thus the applicant could not have been summoned. 9. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant’s learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab4; (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.5; (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.6; (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.7; (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava8; (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others9; (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.10; (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others11, and (ix) M/s Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra12.
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased. Though the proper information was given to O.P. No. 2 regarding death of his daughter and he was present at the time of inquest as well as postmortem and he did not raise any objection or move any complaint, however, the FIR has been lodged after a delay of nine days which is an afterthought. He further contended that it is a case of malicious prosecution as the postmortem report shows the cause of death to be asphyxia due to result of hanging and there being no external injury on the person of the deceased, thus, it cannot be said that the applicant was in any way responsible for the death of daughter of O.P. No. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant next contended that there is no specific allegation regarding harassment for dowry by the applicant. He also pointed out the fact that earlier charge- sheet was submitted against other accused persons on 31.08.2024, whereas against the applicant the charge sheet has been submitted on 09.09.2024 and 16.09.2024. In view of the charge-sheet against other accused persons, the cognizance has been taken on 25.09.2024 but the applicant had not been summoned till date but under some anticipation, she has surrendered before the court concerned, though, on the charge- sheet as submitted against the applicant, court concerned took up the matter on 18.10.2024, and by order dated 09.01.2025 initiated proceedings against the applicant. There is no evidence on record to 3 show that the applicant was, in any way, responsible for the death of daughter of O.P. No. 2. 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that in the version of FIR itself it is stated that blank paper with signatures of O.P. No. 2 was given to the police personnel but when after few days FIR was not lodged, another application was given on which FIR was lodged belatedly. The delay in such case, wherein the O.P. No. 2 has lost his daughter only after passage of about one and half year from her marriage, the delay is quite natural, however, from the version of FIR it is clear that the delay on the part of the O.P. No. 2 is not deliberate. 7. Submission of charge-sheet against the applicant is on the basis of investigation as conducted by the Investigating Officer, therefore,