High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83374 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5114 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Rajkumari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Harishankar,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Dubey,G.A.,P.K. Singh,Ram Milan Dwivedi Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta and Sri Harishankar, learned counsels appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri P.K.Singh as well as Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned counsels appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 (State Vs. Awadhesh) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that the F.I.R. No. 193 of 2019 had been registered in Police Station Atarra, District Banda under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act wherein, the allegation has been levelled that the revisionists were demanding additional dowry and when parents of the deceased could not fulfill that demand, on 25.08.2019, Malkhan, Poonam, Manju and Awadhesh came to the rented house where Awadhesh and victim were residing and in the night at about 11:00 P.M., they have thrown the victim from the roof, which resulted in her death. There are only general allegations against the revisionists in respect of the demand of dowry and further, the owner of the rented house had categorically stated before the Investigating Officer that no one came to her house and on the date of incident, only husband and wife were there. 4. It has further been contended that earlier an application was filed by the informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court wherein, it was stated that the testimony of P.W. 1 i.e. informant and P.W. 2 i.e. mother of the informant have been recorded before the trial court wherein, it has been said that the revisionists were involved in the crime in question therefore, they may be summoned to face the trial. The aforesaid application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was considered by the trial court and vide order dated 13.07.2023, it had been provided that since there are thirty listed witnesses therefore, the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be considered only after recording of the testimony of the witnesses of fact and other witnesses. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has argued that the situation from the stage of passing of the order dated 13.07.2023 by the trial court has not changed much as the testimony of only P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had been recorded therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and pass the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 and thereby, to summon the revisionists to face the trial. 6. It has further been argued that from bare perusal of the order dated 13.07.2023, annexed at Page No. 198 of this criminal revision, it is apparent that the trial court earlier had refused to exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the testimony of the P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 with the observation that the same may be exercised when the testimony of fact witnesses and other witnesses is recorded. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the revisionists that the allegation against the revisionists regarding demand of dowry is general in nature and further allegation is that Malkhan, Poonam, Manju and Awadhesh came through a private car to the rented house where Awadhesh and the victim were residing and on 25.08.2019 at about 11:00 P.M., they threw the victim from the roof which resulted in her death therefore, for ascertaining the correctness of the allegations, testimony of the witnesses like the owner of the house and other persons of the nearby locality is very relevant that too, when the owner of the house, before the police, had categorically stated that no one except the husband and wife were in her house on 25.08.2019. It has further been argued that once the trial court itself at earlier point of time had refused to entertain the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the same would be considered after recording of the testimony of the fact witnesses and other witnesses, there was no occasion for the trial court to exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the same evidence. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 (State Vs. Awadhesh), is liable to be set- aside by this Court. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri P.K. Singh as well as Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned counsels appearing for Opposite Party No. 2, on a pointed query raised by this Court as to what is the change in the evidence available before the trial court from 13.07.2023 when the trial court refused to exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the counsels could not point out any change in the evidence. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and learned counsels appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have submitted that this Court may set-aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 with liberty to the opposite parties to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., at an appropriate stage in the trial. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionists has submitted that since the counsels appearing for the opposite parties have consented that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 may be set- aside, he has no objection if the liberty is given by this Court to the opposite parties to file a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., at an appropriate stage. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed along with this criminal revision. I find that the trial court, at earlier point of time, had passed an order on 13.07.2023, whereby it refused to exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for the reason that testimony of only P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 had been recorded, whereas there are thirty listed witnesses, as such the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be considered after the testimony of the fact witnesses and other witnesses is recorded. 13. This Court is of the view that the position of the evidence available before the trial court on 13.07.2023 has not changed much and only on the basis of the testimonies of P.W. 1 & P.W. 2, the trial court had passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 and thereby, had summoned the revisionists to face the trial. 14. Since the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri P.K. Singh as well as Sri Ram Milan Dwivedi, learned counsels appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 have consented that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 may be set-aside with liberty to the opposite parties to file a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage, this criminal revision is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Banda in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2019 (State Vs. Awadhesh), is hereby set-aside. 15. Liberty is granted to the opposite parties to file a fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, at an appropriate stage and it is provided that if any such application is filed, that may be considered and decided by the trial court in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 A. Mandhani Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad