Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Others v. State of U.P. and another)

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day.

4. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

5. The present revision has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order allowing the revision thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Learned Court of 7th Additional District & Session Judge, Sitapur, in Criminal Case No. 1185/2024 State Vs. Bagish Kumar @ Guddu & Ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 299/1995 lodged U/s 498-A, 304- B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Maholi, Sitapur and also to pass fresh order in accordance with law and any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case,"

6. The relief(s) aforesaid as appears from the record as also submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist, is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Sitapur, namely Narendra Kumar, over which the Medical Officer, District Hospital Sitapur has also put signature, which is annexed as Annexure No.2 the present revision.

7. It would be apt to indicate that prior to filing the instant revision, the revisionist alongwith others approached this Court by means of filing Application U/S 482 No. 2245 of 2023 (Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Others Versus State of U.P. and another).

8. In the aforesaid application, the applicant/revisionist challenged the charge- sheet no. 07/1998 dated 14.08.1998 as also the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004 (State Versus Bagish Kumar alias Bagish Kumar Shukla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Maholi, District- Sitapur and also challenged the summoning order(s) dated 02.01.1999 and 13.02.2023 passed by court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.

9. The Application U/S 482 No. 2245 of 2023, indicated above, appears to be filed on various grounds including the ground based upon the dying declaration as this fact has not been refuted.

10. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 declined to grant the prayer(s) sought, which includes the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004. The order dated 23.03.2023 reads as under:- "Heard Shri Badri Prasad Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Rajendra Kumar @ Rajendra Kumar Shukla, Anuj Kumar and Bagish Kumar, with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 07/1998 dated 14.08.1998 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004, State Vs. Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur as well as summoning order dated 02.01.1999 and 13.02.2023 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately 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 quashing of the summoning order and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of summoning order or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. As requested, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today, and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. " After the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by this Court, the 11. revisionist/applicant preferred an application seeking discharge on various factual aspects of the case including the dying declaration of the deceased.

12. The trial court rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionist vide impugned order dated 19.06.2025.

13. After the aforesaid, the revisionist filed an Application U/S 482 No. 5868 of 2025 (Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Shukla Versus State of U.P.). This application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 with liberty to the applicant to file the instant revision. The order dated 30.07.2025 reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned 7th Addl. District and Session Judge, Sitapur in Session Case No.1185 of 2024 whereby an application filed for discharge of the applicant was rejected.

3. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has got a statutory remedy of filing a Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press the instant application and seeks liberty to file a revision against the aforesaid order.

5. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.

6. Let the certified copies filed along with the application be returned to the applicant after retaining their photocopies on record. "

14. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed impeaching the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the trial court.

15. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted as under in support of the prayer sought in the present revision:- (i) The liberty was granted by this Court dated 23.03.2023 to file discharge application, as such the present revision is maintainable/entertainable. (ii) The trial court, while rejecting the application seeking discharge, erred in law and fact both in not considering the dying declaration of the deceased in its true spirit. (iii) As per the postmortem report the case of death is septicaemia. (iv) The trial court erred in law and fact both in not considering the fact that FIR was lodged after delay of 26 days and deceased was alive till 18.08.1995. (v) The Police submitted final report and this fact has not been considered by the trial court. (vi) The said final report was reiterated by the Police Officer/Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') on three occasions. (vii) The trial court only on the opinion of DGC, rejected the application seeking discharge.

16. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the present revision.

17. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts including the fact that this Court earlier declined to quash the charge-sheet as also the criminal proceedings, and also taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399, this Court is not inclined to cause interference in the order dated 19.06.2025 impugned in the present revision.

18. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist is permitted to implead the necessary opposite party during the course of the day.

4. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

5. The present revision has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an order allowing the revision thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Learned Court of 7th Additional District & Session Judge, Sitapur, in Criminal Case No. 1185/2024 State Vs. Bagish Kumar @ Guddu & Ors., arising out of Case Crime No. 299/1995 lodged U/s 498-A, 304- B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Maholi, Sitapur and also to pass fresh order in accordance with law and any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case,"

6. The relief(s) aforesaid as appears from the record as also submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the revisionist, is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which was recorded by Naib Tehsildar, Sitapur, namely Narendra Kumar, over which the Medical Officer, District Hospital Sitapur has also put signature, which is annexed as Annexure No.2 the present revision.

7. It would be apt to indicate that prior to filing the instant revision, the revisionist alongwith others approached this Court by means of filing Application U/S 482 No. 2245 of 2023 (Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Kumar Shukla and Others Versus State of U.P. and another).

8. In the aforesaid application, the applicant/revisionist challenged the charge- sheet no. 07/1998 dated 14.08.1998 as also the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004 (State Versus Bagish Kumar alias Bagish Kumar Shukla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC read with 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Maholi, District- Sitapur and also challenged the summoning order(s) dated 02.01.1999 and 13.02.2023 passed by court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.

9. The Application U/S 482 No. 2245 of 2023, indicated above, appears to be filed on various grounds including the ground based upon the dying declaration as this fact has not been refuted.

10. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2023 declined to grant the prayer(s) sought, which includes the prayer for quashing of charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004. The order dated 23.03.2023 reads as under:- "Heard Shri Badri Prasad Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants, namely, Rajendra Kumar @ Rajendra Kumar Shukla, Anuj Kumar and Bagish Kumar, with a prayer to quash the charge sheet No. 07/1998 dated 14.08.1998 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6872 of 2004, State Vs. Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 1995, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur as well as summoning order dated 02.01.1999 and 13.02.2023 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. In the process of invoking its inherent jurisdiction, this court cannot be persuaded to have a pre trial before the actual trial begins. The submissions made by the learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately 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 quashing of the summoning order and the entire proceedings can also be done only if it does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and also in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 make the position of law in this regard clear. In absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Apex Court which might justify the quashing of summoning order or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The court below has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless. As requested, the permission to appear through counsel before the concerned lower court within a period of three weeks from today, and move an application claiming discharge on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved, is granted. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits in accordance with law within a period which shall not exceed a period of two months from today. With the above observations, this application stands disposed of. " After the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by this Court, the 11. revisionist/applicant preferred an application seeking discharge on various factual aspects of the case including the dying declaration of the deceased.

12. The trial court rejected the application seeking discharge filed by the revisionist vide impugned order dated 19.06.2025.

13. After the aforesaid, the revisionist filed an Application U/S 482 No. 5868 of 2025 (Rajendra Kumar alias Rajendra Shukla Versus State of U.P.). This application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2025 with liberty to the applicant to file the instant revision. The order dated 30.07.2025 reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Satendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned 7th Addl. District and Session Judge, Sitapur in Session Case No.1185 of 2024 whereby an application filed for discharge of the applicant was rejected.

3. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant has got a statutory remedy of filing a Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant does not want to press the instant application and seeks liberty to file a revision against the aforesaid order.

5. Accordingly, the instant application is hereby dismissed as not pressed with the aforesaid liberty.

6. Let the certified copies filed along with the application be returned to the applicant after retaining their photocopies on record. "

14. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present revision has been filed impeaching the order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the trial court.

15. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted as under in support of the prayer sought in the present revision:- (i) The liberty was granted by this Court dated 23.03.2023 to file discharge application, as such the present revision is maintainable/entertainable. (ii) The trial court, while rejecting the application seeking discharge, erred in law and fact both in not considering the dying declaration of the deceased in its true spirit. (iii) As per the postmortem report the case of death is septicaemia. (iv) The trial court erred in law and fact both in not considering the fact that FIR was lodged after delay of 26 days and deceased was alive till 18.08.1995. (v) The Police submitted final report and this fact has not been considered by the trial court. (vi) The said final report was reiterated by the Police Officer/Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') on three occasions. (vii) The trial court only on the opinion of DGC, rejected the application seeking discharge.

16. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the present revision.

17. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts including the fact that this Court earlier declined to quash the charge-sheet as also the criminal proceedings, and also taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399, this Court is not inclined to cause interference in the order dated 19.06.2025 impugned in the present revision.

18. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench