# Mritunjay Tiwari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 435
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 13307 of 2020
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mritunjay-tiwari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52358
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Bishram Tiwari, G.A., Vimal Kumar Pandey

Corpus Delicti- Applicants alleged that the
victim (wife) ran away from their house and
despite searched for days, she was not locatedcomplainant (father of the victim) alleged that
his daughter (wife of applicant No.1) died under
otherwise than normal circumstances and her
dead body was concealed by applicants. -
evidence on record that applicant No.1 has illicit
relationship with co-accused- and it was
repeatedly objected by his wife - in given
circumstances to establish corpus delicti is not
necessary - at this stage High Court cannot
undertake to conduct a mini trial.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Mritunjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
435
Pawar (supra) and Jiyaullah (supra) are
of no help to the applicant, in view of the
initial act committed against the will of the
opposite party no.2. Therefore, this Court
does not find any good reason to quash the
proceedings as prayed by the applicant, in
view thereof, the instant application is
accordingly dismissed.

24. However, the observation made
hereinabove are made only for the purpose
of deciding the instant application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by any of
the observations made hereinabove and
shall proceed in accordance with law.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 435
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 13307 of 2020

Mritunjay Tiwari & Ors. ...Applicants
 Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Anand Pal Singh, Rajiv Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Bishram Tiwari, G.A., Vimal Kumar Pandey

Corpus Delicti- Applicants alleged that the
victim (wife) ran away from their house and
despite searched for days, she was not locatedcomplainant (father of the victim) alleged that
his daughter (wife of applicant No.1) died under
otherwise than normal circumstances and her
dead body was concealed by applicants. -
evidence on record that applicant No.1 has illicit
relationship with co-accused- and it was
repeatedly objected by his wife - in given
circumstances to establish corpus delicti is not
necessary - at this stage High Court cannot
undertake to conduct a mini trial.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sevaka Perumal Vs St. of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471
2. Mani Kumar Thapa Vs St. of Sikkim, (2002) 7
SCC 157

3. Sanjay Rajak Vs St. of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC
552

4. Rama Nand Vs St. of H.P. [Rama Nand Vs St.
of H.P., (1981) 1 SCC 511 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 197

5. Priyanka Jaiswal Vs St. of Jharkhand & ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 685

6. Akhil Sharda , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned counsel for applicants, Sri Vimal
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
opposite party No.2 and Sri Rakesh Kumar
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Applicant No.1 got married with
Manju
Tiwari
(daughter
of
the
complainant) in 2014, whereas other
applicants are relatives of applicant No.1. It
is the case of applicants that on 23.09.2016
at about 9.00 p.m., Smt. Manju Tiwari ran
away from their house and despite searched
for days, she was not located. Applicants
have lodged missing report as well as
publications were made in newspaper also.

3. The complainant side was also
making efforts along with applicants side to
search her but all attempts were failed. In
the aforesaid circumstances, complainant
after about six weeks filed an application
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under
Section
156
(3)
Cr.P.C.
on
11.01.2017, alleging that his daughter (wife
of applicant No.1) died under otherwise
than normal circumstances and her dead
body was concealed by applicants. On
order of learned Magistrate, an FIR was
lodged on 25.11.2016 against applicants
(Case Crime No.1203 of 2017) under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of
D.P. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Padrauna,
District- Kushinagar.

4. The Investigating Officer recorded
statements of witnesses and made attempts
to locate victim either alive or dead but she
was not found alive nor her dead body was
recovered. Investigation was not proper,
therefore, a writ petition was filed before
this Court by the complainant for referring
investigation to CBI. The writ petition was
remained pending and orders were passed
against Police Officers.

5. Initially, a charge-sheet No.31 of
2017 was filed only under Section 498-A
I.P.C. and 3⁄4 of D.P. Act. The learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Kushinagar
at
Padrauna, by order dated 02.11.2017,
returned the charge-sheet with direction to
conduct investigation properly. Relevant
part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

"सुना तर्था पत्रावली का सम्यक परिशीलन भकया।

पुभलस द्वािा प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों के अवलोकन से प्रर्थम
दृिया स्पि है, भक भववेचक द्वािा सिी तथ्यों की भवस्तृत र्ााँच भकये
भबना मात्र खानापूभतट किते हुये आिोप पत्र न्यायालय में प्रेभषत कि
भदया गया है। यहााँ यह उल्लेखनीय है, भक आवेदक द्वािा धािा-
498A, 304B, 201 िा०दं०सं० व धािा- 3/4 डी०पी० एक्र्
के तहत मुकदमा पंर्ीकृत किाया गया र्था। आवेदक द्वािा अपने
प्रार्थटना पत्र अन्तगटत धािा- 156(3) दं०प्र०सं० में आधाि भलया
गया र्था, भक दहेर् के भलये उसकी लडकी की हत्या कि उसकी
लाश गायब कि दी गयी है। इस सम्बन्ध में भववेचक द्वािा उसके तर्था
अन्य भनकर्तम सम्बभन्धयों के C.D.R भनकलवायी गयी, पिन्तु
भववेचक द्वािा उससे क्या भनष्कषट भनकला यह अपने केस डायिी में
उल्लेभखत नहीं भकया है, तर्था उसकी गुमसुदगी के सम्बन्ध में पेपिों
में तर्था सिी सम्बभन्धत लोगों व गुमशुदगी के सम्बन्ध में र्रिये
िेभडयो व दूिदशटन आस-पास के भर्लों से किाया गया र्था। पिन्तु
भबना भकसी समुभचत भनष्कषट पि आये भववेचक द्वािा यह आिोप पत्र
न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत कि भदया गया है। प्रर्थम दृिया स्वयं
भववेचना अपूणट की र्ानी प्रतीत होती है। अतः इस भनदेश के सार्थ
भवेवेचक को केस डायिी वापस प्रेभषत की र्ाती है, भक वह सिी
तथ्यों को दृभिगत िखते हुये भनष्पक्षतापूवटक भववेचना सम्पाभदत कि
आख्या प्रेभषत किें।"

6. It appears that Investigating Officer
has submitted other charge-sheet also.
Learned Magistrate has decided another
protest petition by order dated 17.07.2018,
whereby
said
charge-sheet
was
also
returned for further investigation. Relevant
part of it is reproduced hereinafter :-

"सुना तर्था पत्रावली का सम्यक परिशीलन भकया।

पुभलस द्वािा प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों के अवलोकन से प्रर्थम
दृिया स्पि है, भक भववेचक द्वािा सिी तथ्यों की भवस्तृत र्ााँच भकये
भबना मात्र खानापूभतट किते हुये आिोप पत्र न्यायालय में प्रेभषत कि
भदया गया है। यहााँ यह उल्लेखनीय है, भक आवेदक द्वािा धािा-
498A, 304B, 201 िा०दं०सं० व धािा-3/4 डी०पी० एक्र्
के तहत मुकदमा पंर्ीकृत किाया गया र्था। आवेदक द्वािा अपने
प्रार्थटना पत्र अन्तगटत धािा 156 (3) दं०प्र०सं० में आधाि भलया
गया र्था, भक दहेर् के भलये उसकी लडकी की हत्या कि उसकी
लाश गायब कि दी गयी है। इस सम्बन्ध में भववेचक द्वािा उसके तर्था
अन्य भनकर्तन सम्बभन्धयों के फोनों की C.D.R. भनकलवायी
गयी, पिन्तु भववेचक द्वािा उससे क्या भनष्कषट भनकला यह अपने केस
डायिी में भलभखत नहीं भकया है, तर्था उसकी गुमसुदगी के सम्बन्ध में
पेपिों में तर्था सिी सम्बभन्धत लोगों व गुमशुदगी के सम्बन्ध में र्रिये
िेभडयो व दुिशटन आस-पास के भर्लों से किाया गया र्था। पिन्तु भबना
भकसी समुभचत भनष्कषट पि आये भववेचक द्वािा यह आिोप पत्र
न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत कि भकया गया है। प्रर्थम दृिया स्वयं
भववेचना अपूणट की र्ानी प्रतीत होती है। अतः इस भनदेश के सार्थ
भववेचक को केस डायिी वापस प्रेभषत की र्ाती है, भक वह सिी
तथ्यों को दृभिगत िखते हुये भनष्पक्षतापूवटक अभिम भववेचना
सम्पाभदत कि रिपोर्ट प्रेभषत किें।"

7. Meanwhile, applicants' attempt to
quash FIR was failed, whereas attempts of
9 All. Mritunjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
437
complainants
for
fair
and
further
investigation remained successful.

8. The writ petition filed by the
complainant got disposed of by order dated
24.02.2020.
Relevant
part
of
it
is
reproduced hereinafter :-

" 6. Today, an affidavit has been
filed by Investigating Officer (hereinafter
referred to as 'I.O.') stating therein that
charge-sheet has been submitted by I.O
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi
Nagar whereupon, Magistrate has taken
cogniaznce
and
issued
summons
on
18.2.2020 to accused.

7. Learned counsel for accused
respondent-5
submits
that
superficial
investigation has been conducted and
without collecting any credible evidence,
charge-sheet
has
been
submitted.
If
petitioner has any grievance regarding
submission of charge-sheet, same can be
raised before the Magistrate concerned at
the time of framing of charge or by
challenging order taking cognizance before
Revisional Court.

8. Since charge-sheet has already
been submitted and Magistrate has taken
cognizance in the matter, no further cause
of action survives in present writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as
infructuous. Personal appearance of Mr.
Vinod Kumar Mishra, Superintendent of
Police, Kushi Nagar and Mr. Netesh
Pratap Singh Deputy Superintendent of
Police
(Circle
Officer,
Tamkuhiraj),
District Kushi Nagar is dispensed with. "

9. In the aforesaid circumstances,
finally a charge-sheet was filed on
12.02.2020 i.e. after about 3 years on which
cognizance was taken and applicants were
summoned by order dated 05.03.2020.

10. The said charge-sheet, cognizance
and summoning order were challenged by
way of present application. Initially, this
Court has granted an interim order on
21.09.2020,
which
was
extended
on
subsequent
dates
also,
however,
on
28.03.2022 it was discharged. In the
aforesaid circumstances, applicants have
filed respective discharge applications
before learned Trial Court, which are still
pending.

11. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned
counsel for applicants has submitted that
offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. could
not be made out, since there is no material
or evidence that wife of the applicant No.1
has died under otherwise than normal
circumstances since there is no evidence
that she has died as well as if she already
died, still there is no evidence about
manner of her death. Her dead body was
not
recovered.
Learned
counsel
also
submitted that complainant's side along
with applicants side was taking various
efforts to locate wife of applicant No.1 and
they have not raised any suspicion for
about more than one and a half month.

12. Learned counsel also referred
litigation filed before this Court that
charge-sheet was filed only under threat of
contempt
proceedings
initiated
by
complainant against police officers. The
complainant himself has raised a suspicion
that his daughter may have eloped with
other person though on investigation there
was no break through in that direction. The
charge-sheet was filed only on assumption
without any evidence to support allegation
of dowry death.

13. The aforesaid submissions are
opposed by Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra,
learned A.G.A. for State and Sri Vimal
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
complainant side that in such cases, it is not
necessary to establish corpus delicti. It is
the case of complainant side that deceased
has died under otherwise than normal
circumstances within seven years of
marriage and that she has suffered with
cruelty for demand of dowry soon before
her death and her dead body was concealed
by applicants side.

14. Learned counsel for complainant
submitted that applicants were initially
successful in misdirecting the complainant
that it was a case of missing and kept him
busy in order to delay in lodging FIR and
from
prompt
commencement
of
investigation. Applicants have already filed
respective discharge application which will
be considered in accordance with law. No
circumstance exists to interfere with chargesheet. Learned counsel for complainant has
placed reliance on judgments of Supreme
Court passed in Sevaka Perumal Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 3 SCC 471 and
Mani Kumar Thapa Vs. State of Sikkim,
(2002) 7 SCC 157.

15. Heard counsel for parties and
perused the record.

16. It is well settled that at the stage
of challenge to charge-sheet, no mini trial
could be conducted by this Court. The only
consideration before this Court is that in
given circumstances, when dead body of
wife of applicant No.1 was not recovered,
whether it could be deemed that she died
under otherwise than normal circumstances
or in given set of circumstances, the
argument that there is no requirement to
establish corpus delicti has merit.

17. In order to consider above
submissions,
a
judgment
passed
by
Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay
Rajak Vs. State of Bihar, (2019) 12 SCC
552 would be relevant and its few
paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter :-

"9. It is not an invariable rule of
criminal jurisprudence that the failure of
the police to recover the corpus delicti will
render the prosecution case doubtful
entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit
of doubt. It is only one of the relevant
factors to be considered along with all
other attendant facts and circumstances to
arrive at a finding based on reasonability
and probability based on normal human
prudence and behaviour. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the
failure of the police to recover the dead
body is not much of consequence in the
absence
of
any
explanation by
the
appellant both with regard to the victim
last being seen with him coupled with the
recovery from his house of the belongings
of the deceased. Rama Nand v. State of
H.P. [Rama Nand v. State of H.P., (1981) 1
SCC 511 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 197] , was a
case of circumstantial evidence where the
corpus delicti was not found. This Court
upholding the conviction observed: (SCC
pp. 522-23, para 28)

"28. ... But in those times when
execution was the only punishment for
murder, the need for adhering to this
cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of
the dead body of the victim bearing
physical evidence of violence, has never
been considered as the only mode of
proving the corpus delicti in murder.
Indeed, very many cases are of such a
nature where the discovery of the dead
body is impossible. A blind adherence to
this old "body" doctrine would open the
door wide open for many a heinous
murderer to escape with impunity simply
because they were cunning and clever
9 All. Mritunjay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
439
enough to destroy the body of their victim.
In the context of our law, Sir Hale's
enunciation has to be interpreted no more
than emphasising that where the dead body
of the victim in a murder case is not found,
other cogent and satisfactory proof of the
homicidal death of the victim must be
adduced by the prosecution. Such proof
may be by the direct ocular account of an
eyewitness, or by circumstantial evidence,
or by both. But where the fact of corpus
delicti i.e. "homicidal death" is sought to
be established by circumstantial evidence
alone, the circumstances must be of a
clinching
and
definitive
character
unerringly leading to the inference that the
victim concerned has met a homicidal
death. Even so, this principle of caution
cannot be pushed too far as requiring
absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to
be had in this imperfect world, and
absolute certainty is a myth. That is why
under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact
is said to be "proved", if the court
considering the matters before it, considers
its existence so probable that a prudent
man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act upon the supposition
that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact
of homicidal death, therefore, can be
proved
by
telling
and
inculpating
circumstances which definitely lead to the
conclusion
that
within
all
human
probability, the victim has been murdered
by the accused concerned."

10.Sevaka Perumal v. State of
T.N. [Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N.,
(1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] ,
was also a case where the corpus delicti
was not found yet conviction was upheld
observing: (SCC pp. 476-77, para 5)

"5. ... In a trial for murder it is
not an absolute necessity or an essential
ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The
fact of death of the deceased must be
established like any other fact. Corpus
delicti in some cases may not be possible to
be traced or recovered. Take for instance
that a murder was committed and the dead
body was thrown into flowing tidal river or
stream or burnt out. It is unlikely that the
dead body may be recovered. If recovery of
the dead body, therefore, is an absolute
necessity to convict an accused, in many a
case the accused would manage to see that
the dead body is destroyed, etc. and would
afford a complete immunity to the guilty
from being punished and would escape
even when the offence of murder is proved.
What, therefore, is required to base a
conviction for an offence of murder is that
there should be reliable and acceptable
evidence that the offence of murder, like
any other factum of death was committed
and it must be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence, although the dead
body may not be traced.""
(Emphasis Supplied)

18. It is case of complainant that
under a bonafide impression, believing that
applicant No.1 i.e. (husband of his
daughter) was undertaking bonafide steps
to search his wife, no prompt FIR was
lodged but later on when it was clear that
attempts of applicants side were nothing
but to distract the complainant from real
issue, an FIR was lodged after about six
weeks. The police was not conducting fair
investigation, therefore, the complainant
has filed a writ petition wherein various
orders were passed and after two chargesheet were returned with direction of
further
investigation
by
concerned
Magistrate, finally impugned charge-sheet
was filed.

19. In order to consider rival
submissions, above referred circumstances
are
very
relevant
as
well
as
no
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstance exist to support the story put
forward by the applicants that his wife ran
away on 23.09.2016 and remained missing
except a vague story that she has an illicit
relationship with some other person and
she may elope with him, which was later
on, after an inquiry was found false. In
above background claim of complainant
side that applicants side has misdirected
them during initial period for about six
weeks that his wife was missing but later
on their intention were exposed, has
substance.

20. No reason even remote was
brought on record which could be ground
for applicant No.1's wife to run away from
her matrimonial house. Only on a ground
that her dead body was not recovered, it
could not be said that she is still alive.
There are evidence on record that applicant
No.1 has illicit relationship with coaccused and it was repeatedly objected by
his wife and her family members as well as
that there are allegations of committing
cruelty for or in regard to demand of dowry
also, therefore, the Court is of considered
opinion that argument of learned counsel
for complainant and the State has more
force
at
this
stage
that
in
given
circumstances to establish corpus delicti is
not necessary and applicants have a liberty
to
raise
all
such
arguments
during
consideration of their discharge application
pending before learned Trial Court or
during trial, as the case may be. The
Sanjay Rajak (supra) is applicable in full
force in present case in support of
prosecution case.

21. The Court also takes note of ;brief
facts of the case; mentioned in the
impugned charge-sheet and for reference
relevant part of it is reproduced hereinafter
:-

"मुकदमा उपिोक्त की अब तक की कायटवाही
भववेचना से यह स्पि हो चुका है भक मृतका गायब नही हुई र्थी
बभल्क गुमशुदगी के पूवट वादी द्वािा प्रस्तुत भवविण के अनुसाि
ससुिाल पक्ष द्वािा दहेर् के भलये उसको प्रताडना किते हुये मन्र्ू
भतवािी की मृत्यु करित कि साक्ष्य का लोप किने हेतु शव को गायब
कि भदया गया। वादी द्वािा इस सम्बन्ध में मुख्य न्याभयक मभर्स्रेर्
कुशीनगि के न्यायालय में सशपर्थ शपर्थ पत्र प्रस्तुत किते हुये
उपिोक्त तथ्यों की पुभि की गयी है। भर्सकी छायाप्रभत संलग्न की र्ा
िही है।... प्रर्थम सूचना रिपोर्ट के अनुसाि वादी की पुत्री मंर्ू भतवािी
की शादी भदनांक 17-02-2014 को मृत्युन्र्य भतवािी भनवासी
िाम भिसवा सिकािी र्थाना कोतवाली पडिौना भर्ला कुशीनगि के
सार्थ सम्पन्न हुई। इस तथ्य की पुभि में शादी के फोर्ो िाफ व शादी
की काडट साक्ष्य रूप में उपलब्ध है। शादी के पश्चात मृत्युन्र्य भतविी,
िाधेश्याम भतवािी, िार्ेन्र भतवािी, देवेन्र भतवािी पुत्रगण धुपही
भतवािी, कुमािी भडम्पल भतवािी पुत्र घनश्याम भतवािी, गायत्री देवी
पत्नी घनश्याम भतवािी, रोपदी देवी पत्नी देवेन्र भतवािी सा० भनसवा
सिकािी र्थाना कोतवाली पडिौना कुशीनगि द्वािा मंर्ू भतवािी की
प्रताडना सम्बन्धी साक्ष्य वादी के शपर्थ पत्र व धािा 161
सीआि०पी०सी० के बयान वादी व वादी की पत्नी श्रीमती भनमटला
दीभक्षत व लडका मानवेन्र दीभक्षत गवाहान श्री र्र्ाशंकि भमश्रा पुत्र
छेदी भमश्रा व अभनल कुमाि भमश्रा पुत्र र्र्ाशंकि भमश्रा सा० बेलवा
भमश्र पकडी र्थाना कोतवाली पडिौना कुशीनगि व श्री बलीिाम यादव
पुत्र िाधे भकशुन सा० पिसौना र्थाना कसया र्नपद कुशीनगि के
बयान से भसद्ध होता है। इन्ही गवाहों द्वािा प्रर्थम सूचना रिपोर्ट के
तथ्यों की पुभि की गयी है। भववाभहत मंर्ू भतवािी के मोबाईल नं0
9120442 के सी०डी०आि० के अवलोकन किने पि इस तथ्य
की पुभि हुई है भक उसकी बात अपने माता भपता से भदनांक 2309-16
को
20-07-46
बर्े
1177
सेकेडड
9120810387 हरिशंकि दीभक्षत के मोबाईल नं० पि बात हुई है
तर्था इस बात की िी पुभि हो िही है भक िात में सवा दस बर्े के
आस पास मन्र्ू भतवािी के मोबाईल से उसके पभत द्वािा मन्र्ू के
माता भपता । वादी। को फोन किके उसके घि से गायब होने की
सूचना दी गयी। .... वादी द्वािा यह िी अवगत किाया गया है भक
अभियुक्त पक्ष द्वािा भववाभहता के स्वयं गायब होने सम्बन्धी
सूचनावादी पक्ष को औि गुमशुदगी के माध्यम से पुभलस को िी देकि
गुमिाह किने का प्रयास भकया गया है र्बभक अभियुक्तगणों द्वािा
भववाभहता मंर्ू के स्वयं गायब हो र्ाने का समुभचत कािण न तो
वादी को बताया गया औि न तो पुभलस को भववेचना के दौिान
बताया गया। भववाभहता मन्र्ू भतवािी स्वस्र्थ मभहला र्थी भर्सके पास
एक छोर्ा दुधमुहां बच्चा िी र्था र्ो ऐसा कोई भनणटय नहीं ले सकती
र्थी. र्ो उसके बच्चे के भहत के भवरूद्ध हो तर्था उसके स्वयं के
र्ीवन के भलये उभचत न हो। दहेर् सम्बन्धी प्रताडना की बात उसने
9 All. Shashwat Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
441
अपने माता भपता मायके वालों को बताया र्था, भर्सकी पुभि साक्ष्यों से हो
चुकी है। अचानक स्वयं गायब हो र्ाना अपने बच्चे को अनार्थ छोडकि
चले र्ाना, अपने माता भपता को कोई सूचना नहीं देना, यह सिी तथ्य
अभियुक्तगणों द्वािा अपने बचाव में भनभमटत भकये गये है। भववाभहता की
भववाह के सात वषों के िीति अस्विाभवक रूप से दहेर् के भलये
उत्पीभडत किते हुये अस्विाभवक मृत्यु । हत्या। कि अभियुक्त पक्ष द्वािा
उसके शव को साक्ष्य का लोप किने के भलये गायब भकया र्ाना, समस्त
परिभस्र्थभतयों व साक्ष्यों के भवश्लेषण से भसद्ध है। ...... श्रीमान् र्ी अब
तक की तमामी तफ्तीश बयान वादी व बयानात गवाहान व अन्य सबूतों
के आधाि पि मुकदमा उपिोक्त से सम्बभन्धत अभियुक्तगण 1- मृत्युन्र्य
भतवािी पुत्र धुपई भतवािी 2-िाधेश्याम भतवािी पुत्र धुपई भतवािी, 3-िार्ेन्र
भतवािी पुत्र धुपई भतवािी 4 देवेन्र भतविी पुत्र धुपई भतवािी 5-भडम्पल
भतवािी पुत्री घनश्याम भतवािी 6 गायत्री देवी पत्नी घनश्याम भतवािी 7
रोपदी देवी पत्नी देवेन्र भतवािी साभकनान भिसवा सिकािी र्थाना
कोतवाली पडिौना कुशीनगि के भवरूद्ध र्ुमट धािा 498ए, 304बी,
201 आई०पी०सी० व 3/4 डी०पी०ऐक्र् का अपिाध बखूबी साभबत हो
िहा है।"

22. The above referred conclusion is
supported by statements of various witnesses
recorded during long investigation. In the
charge-sheet 25 witnesses were proposed as
prosecution witnesses. Statement of all
proposed witnesses are not enclosed with
present application as well as it has been
recently reiterated by the Supreme Court that
at this stage High Court cannot undertake to
conduct a mini trial or enter into appreciation
of evidence of a particular case, in the case of
Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. State of Jharkhand
and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 and
relevant part of it is mentioned hereinafter :-

"13. We say so for reasons more
than one. This Court in catena of
Judgments has consistently held that at the
time of examining the prayer for quashing
of the criminal proceedings, the court
exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can
neither undertake to conduct a mini trial
nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a
particular
case.
The
correctness
or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
complaint cannot be examined on the
touchstone of the probable defence that the
accused may raise to stave off the
prosecution and any such misadventure by
the Courts resulting in proceedings being
quashed would be set aside. This Court in
the case of Akhil Sharda, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 820 held to the following effect:

"28. Having gone through the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court by which the High Court
has set aside the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.
P.C., it appears that the High Court has
virtually conducted a mini trial, which as
such is not permissible at this stage and
while deciding the application under
Section 482 Cr. P.C. As observed and held
by this Court in a catena of decisions no
mini trial can be conducted by the High
Court in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr. P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of
deciding the application under Section 482
Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot get into
appreciation of evidence of the particular
case being considered.""

23. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do
not find that there is any ground to quash the
charge-sheet as well as cognizance and
summoning order. Accordingly, present
application is rejected.
---------
(2024) 9 ILRA 441
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 19596 of 2024

Shashwat Agrawal ...Applicant
 Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties