Romi Singh v. State of U.P. and others) filed by the revisionist herein has been dismissed and

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad, by which two appeals, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Romi Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the revisionist herein has been dismissed and another appeal bearing no. 37 of 2017 (Subhanshu vs. State of U.P.) filed by the opposite party no. 2 namely, Subhanshu, husband of the revisionist has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that apart from Section 498A, sufficient evidence was available on record in respect of other sections as well, but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 5, Moradabad acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law namely, Pheru Singh and Smt. Chandra Prabha, under Sections 498A, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. However, learned A.C.J.M. convicted the husband, i.e. opposite party no. 2 in the said case crime no. 80 of 2011, for single offence under Section 498A I.P.C., and however, acquitted in respect of Section 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of learned A.C.J.M. dated 18.02.2017, both the parties have filed two appeals. It is the grievance of the revisionist that despite the fact, sufficient evidence was available on record, even then the learned A.C.J.M. also allowed the appeal of opposite party no. 2 bearing no. 37 of 2017 and therefore, the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted from the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry 2 CRLR No. 2125 of 2024 Prohibition Act and ultimately convicted under Section 498A I.P.C.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted, that so far as the acquittal by learned A.C.J.M. is concerned, the learned A.C.J.M. after having found sufficient evidence has considered each and every aspect of the matter and finally convicted the opposite party no. 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. and acquitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vis a vis, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18.07.2017 acquitted the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the revisionist and to that extent the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. is in accordance with law.

6. However, aggrieved by the said order dated 18.07.2017 the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist moved an appeal bearing no. 37 of 2017 and the said appeal was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 got acquitted in respect of Section 498A I.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that the order passed in Appeal No. 37 of 2017, as well as the order passed in Appeal No. 40 of 2017 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law, hence calls for no interference by this Court.

7. Having regard to rival contentions, as far as the order dated 18.02.2017 is concerned, the learned A.C.J.M. while taking into consideration the entire testimony of the witnesses, acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the revisionist and also acquitted the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband in respect of sections 303, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, however convicted the opposite party no. 2, under Section 498A I.P.C. The revisionist aggrieved by order dated 18.2.2017 filed an appeal no. 40 of 2017 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad and the said appeal got dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

8. A perusal of the order dated 19.3.2024, reveals that the findings arrived at by the learned A.C.J.M. in respect of husband that the husband was liable to be convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. appears to be in order. The learned Additional Sessions failed to appreciate the entire facts and evidence on record, as far as the conviction of opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist, under Section 498A I.P.C. is concerned, it is a matter of record that the husband meted out cruelty and he did not care about the revisionist and her son at all. So far as the cruelty is concerned, it has come on record that the husband has committed cruelty by abandoning his wife and child for two and a half years. It is not appropriate to form a presumption of cruelty merely on the basis of his wife's separation. The opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist did not participate in the family function organised in the parental house of the revisionist and thus, the finding 3 CRLR No. 2125 of 2024 arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no case under Section 498A I.P.C. was made out against the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist is not correct and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the revision to that extent is allowed and the order dated 19.3.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, wherein the husband has been acquitted under Section 498A I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and hence, set aside in appeal 37 of 2017

9. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Moradabad to reconsider the entire matter, so far as Section 498A I.P.C. acquitting the opposite party no. 2 / husband of the revisionist in appeal no. 37 of 2017 is concerned, after going through the entire record and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No interference is called for in Appeal No. 40 of 2017. September 22, 2025 Faridul (Harvir Singh,J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad, by which two appeals, bearing Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Romi Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the revisionist herein has been dismissed and another appeal bearing no. 37 of 2017 (Subhanshu vs. State of U.P.) filed by the opposite party no. 2 namely, Subhanshu, husband of the revisionist has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that apart from Section 498A, sufficient evidence was available on record in respect of other sections as well, but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 5, Moradabad acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law namely, Pheru Singh and Smt. Chandra Prabha, under Sections 498A, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. However, learned A.C.J.M. convicted the husband, i.e. opposite party no. 2 in the said case crime no. 80 of 2011, for single offence under Section 498A I.P.C., and however, acquitted in respect of Section 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of learned A.C.J.M. dated 18.02.2017, both the parties have filed two appeals. It is the grievance of the revisionist that despite the fact, sufficient evidence was available on record, even then the learned A.C.J.M. also allowed the appeal of opposite party no. 2 bearing no. 37 of 2017 and therefore, the opposite party no. 2 was acquitted from the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry 2 CRLR No. 2125 of 2024 Prohibition Act and ultimately convicted under Section 498A I.P.C.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 has submitted, that so far as the acquittal by learned A.C.J.M. is concerned, the learned A.C.J.M. after having found sufficient evidence has considered each and every aspect of the matter and finally convicted the opposite party no. 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. and acquitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vis a vis, learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18.07.2017 acquitted the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the revisionist and to that extent the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. is in accordance with law.

6. However, aggrieved by the said order dated 18.07.2017 the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist moved an appeal bearing no. 37 of 2017 and the said appeal was allowed and the opposite party no. 2 got acquitted in respect of Section 498A I.P.C. Learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that the order passed in Appeal No. 37 of 2017, as well as the order passed in Appeal No. 40 of 2017 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law, hence calls for no interference by this Court.

7. Having regard to rival contentions, as far as the order dated 18.02.2017 is concerned, the learned A.C.J.M. while taking into consideration the entire testimony of the witnesses, acquitted the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the revisionist and also acquitted the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband in respect of sections 303, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, however convicted the opposite party no. 2, under Section 498A I.P.C. The revisionist aggrieved by order dated 18.2.2017 filed an appeal no. 40 of 2017 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad and the said appeal got dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

8. A perusal of the order dated 19.3.2024, reveals that the findings arrived at by the learned A.C.J.M. in respect of husband that the husband was liable to be convicted under Section 498A I.P.C. appears to be in order. The learned Additional Sessions failed to appreciate the entire facts and evidence on record, as far as the conviction of opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist, under Section 498A I.P.C. is concerned, it is a matter of record that the husband meted out cruelty and he did not care about the revisionist and her son at all. So far as the cruelty is concerned, it has come on record that the husband has committed cruelty by abandoning his wife and child for two and a half years. It is not appropriate to form a presumption of cruelty merely on the basis of his wife's separation. The opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist did not participate in the family function organised in the parental house of the revisionist and thus, the finding 3 CRLR No. 2125 of 2024 arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no case under Section 498A I.P.C. was made out against the opposite party no. 2, i.e. husband of the revisionist is not correct and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the revision to that extent is allowed and the order dated 19.3.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, wherein the husband has been acquitted under Section 498A I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and hence, set aside in appeal 37 of 2017

9. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 2, Moradabad to reconsider the entire matter, so far as Section 498A I.P.C. acquitting the opposite party no. 2 / husband of the revisionist in appeal no. 37 of 2017 is concerned, after going through the entire record and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. No interference is called for in Appeal No. 40 of 2017. September 22, 2025 Faridul (Harvir Singh,J.) FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad