State of U.P. and Another v. Party

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Shahzade with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.3, Allahabad whereby discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected in S.T. No.2364 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 206 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tharwai, District Prayagraj.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this dowry death case, though he was living separately from his son and daughter-in-law. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the 2 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. The revisionist has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that the revisionist is the father-in-law of the deceased. He never made any demand of additional dowry nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by him in connection with the said demand. It is also submitted that since the deceased was unable to conceive and she has no child, she was living in frustration and her treatment was also going on in this regard and she subsequently committed suicide by hanging herself. The revisionist has played no role in commission of the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. The revisionist and the deceased were living in the same house and the I.O. has collected ample evidence with regard to cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased by her in-laws, particularly the informant of this case, who is the father of the deceased, has very categorically assigned role of the present revisionist during investigation. A ligature mark has been found by the doctor on the neck of the deceased but no plausible explanation has been given by the revisionist before the I.O. that as to why his daughter-in-law committed suicide within a span of one year and six months after the marriage. There 3 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

7. The parameters for discharge and framing of charge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused. 4 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist alongwith other co-accused persons made demand of additional dowry from the deceased in the form of Rupees One Lakh cash and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Revisionist was named in the F.I.R. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Plea taken by the revisionist does not seem to be plausible that only after one year and six months of the marriage the deceased committed suicide in frustration that she was unable to conceive. Specific ground of separate living has been taken by the revisionist but no cogent evidence has been produced before the I.O. in this regard. Further, sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by during investigation for his active participation in the revisionist against I.O. 5 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 commission of the crime which prima facie shows that the offence has been committed by the revisionist. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 12, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist - Shahzade with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.3, Allahabad whereby discharge application moved by the revisionist has been rejected in S.T. No.2364 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 206 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Tharwai, District Prayagraj.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2

3. Admit.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this dowry death case, though he was living separately from his son and daughter-in-law. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the revisionist. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. Learned counsel for the 2 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 revisionist impressed upon certain documents and statements in support of his contention. The revisionist has no concern with the present matter. It is further submitted that the revisionist is the father-in-law of the deceased. He never made any demand of additional dowry nor the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by him in connection with the said demand. It is also submitted that since the deceased was unable to conceive and she has no child, she was living in frustration and her treatment was also going on in this regard and she subsequently committed suicide by hanging herself. The revisionist has played no role in commission of the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the discharge application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected in an arbitrary manner. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of considering the discharge application, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. The revisionist and the deceased were living in the same house and the I.O. has collected ample evidence with regard to cruelty and harassment caused to the deceased by her in-laws, particularly the informant of this case, who is the father of the deceased, has very categorically assigned role of the present revisionist during investigation. A ligature mark has been found by the doctor on the neck of the deceased but no plausible explanation has been given by the revisionist before the I.O. that as to why his daughter-in-law committed suicide within a span of one year and six months after the marriage. There 3 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

7. The parameters for discharge and framing of charge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts.

8. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused. 4 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025

9. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused revisionist alongwith other co-accused persons made demand of additional dowry from the deceased in the form of Rupees One Lakh cash and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment. Revisionist was named in the F.I.R. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case. Plea taken by the revisionist does not seem to be plausible that only after one year and six months of the marriage the deceased committed suicide in frustration that she was unable to conceive. Specific ground of separate living has been taken by the revisionist but no cogent evidence has been produced before the I.O. in this regard. Further, sufficient and ample evidence has been collected by during investigation for his active participation in the revisionist against I.O. 5 CRLR No. 1166 of 2025 commission of the crime which prima facie shows that the offence has been committed by the revisionist. Hence, all the offences for which discharge application of the revisionist was rejected are prima facie made out on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the revisionist are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the revisionist. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the discharge application. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the revision is refused. The criminal revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 12, 2025 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad