# Revisionists v. State of U.P. and another Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 901
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-08-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4615 of 2010
- **Bench:** Rajesh Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-opp-parties-42001
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Revision summoning order for
alleged offence under section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-from statement of
witnesses recorded under section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C.-demand of dowry, abuse
and
beating-established-held
order
passed by Trail Court perfectly valid-No
interference called for.

Held: Para 9

A
perusal
of
the
impugned
order
indicates that the same has been passed
after considering the evidence available
on record and there is no illegality in the
same.
There
was
evidence
of
the
complainant to the effect that there was
demand of dowry and due to nonfulfillment of the same, the complainant
was
being
abused,
threatened
and
beaten as well. This order of the trial
court is perfectly valid and call for no
interference at this stage.
Case law discussed:
1964 (SCR) 639; 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.);
2002 (44) A.C.C. 168 (S.C.)
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

## Text

2 All] Santosh Kumar Singh and others V. State of U.P. and another

901
Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhary Dental
Universy Sirsa, (2011) 2 SCC 94, Safiya
Bee Vs. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain @
Fasi, 2010 AIR SCW 7184, Sant Lal
Gupta and others Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.
and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1188, Smt.
Sheeladevi and another Vs. State of U.P.
And others (full bench), 2010 (2) SCC
706, Mahesh Ratilal Shah Vs. Union of
India, 2007 (6) ADJ 225 : Murali Singh
and another Versus Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Varanasi and others,
2005 (2) SCC 673 : Central Board of
Dawoodi
Bohra
Community
and
another Versus State of Maharashtra
and another, (2008 (1) UPLBEC 211,
Manju Lata Agrawal (Smt.) Vs. State of
U.P. and another). The case of Swaran
Singh (supra), shall occupy the field with
regard to payment of compensation and
liability of Insurance Company to the
extent of repugnancy.

14. In view of the above, the appeal
is allowed in part. The impugned award
dated 4.5.2002 is modified to the extent
that it shall be open to the appellant
Insurance Company to recover the amount
under award from the insured in terms of
the
procedure
provided
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Swaran
Singh (supra). It is further provided that
the appellant Insurance Company shall
deposit entire amount before the Tribunal
within two months and the Tribunal shall
release the same within one month in
favour of the claimant respondents.
Deposit made in this Court, shall be
remitted to the Tribunal forthwith by the
Registry.

15.

The
appeal
is
allowed
accordingly in part. Costs easy.
---------

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J.

Criminal Revision No. 4615 of 2010

Santosh Kumar Singh and others

 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Hemant Kumar
Sri S.K. Ojha
A.G.A.

Criminal Revision summoning order for
alleged offence under section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-from statement of
witnesses recorded under section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C.-demand of dowry, abuse
and
beating-established-held
order
passed by Trail Court perfectly valid-No
interference called for.

Held: Para 9

A
perusal
of
the
impugned
order
indicates that the same has been passed
after considering the evidence available
on record and there is no illegality in the
same.
There
was
evidence
of
the
complainant to the effect that there was
demand of dowry and due to nonfulfillment of the same, the complainant
was
being
abused,
threatened
and
beaten as well. This order of the trial
court is perfectly valid and call for no
interference at this stage.
Case law discussed:
1964 (SCR) 639; 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.);
2002 (44) A.C.C. 168 (S.C.)
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.)

1. The present revision has been filed
challenging the order dated 21.8.2010 by
which the Judicial Magistrate- I, Ballia has
summoned the revisionists for the offences
under Section 498-A,323,504 and 506
I.P.C.
and
Section
3/4
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are
that the complainant Smt. Rani Singh filed
a complaint against the present revisionist
Santosh Kumar Singh and others alleging
therein that the complainant Rani Singh
was married to Santosh Kumar Singh
about 10 years back and at the time of
marriage, sufficient dowry was given but
her in-laws were not satisfied with the
same. Further the allegation is that the
accused persons were consistently pressing
a demand for the T.V., Fridge , Cooler and
Rs. one lakh in cash and due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry, the
complainant somehow being teased and
harassed. On 25..3.2010 at about 2.00 p.m.,
the complainant was severely beaten and
an attempt was also made to ablaze her by
pouring kerosene oil. The complainant
somehow managed to escape and came to
her parental house. She was also medically
examined.

3. Magistrate recorded the statement
of the complainant under Section 200
Cr.P.C. in which she confirmed the
allegations made in the complaint. The
Magistrate also recorded the statements of
Amarnath Singh and Kharak Bahadur
Singh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which
they also confirmed that the accused
persons were making demand of dowry
and Smt. Rani Singh was being harassed
and teased for the same.

4. After considering the evidence, the
Magistrate passed the order which is under
challenge in this revision.

5. During the pendency of the
revision in this Court, the matter was sent
to the Mediation Center so that some
amicable settlement may take place
between the parties but the Mediation
Center has reported that the mediation has
failed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel
for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. as well
as learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2. The learned counsel for the
revisionists argued that the Magistrate has
passed the impugned order in a routine
manner without there being any evidence
on record.

7. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the submissions made on
behalf of the revisionists . In the case of
Chandra
Deo
Singh
Vs.
Prakash
Chandra Bose, 1964 (SCR) 639 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage
of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the
test was whether there was sufficient
ground for proceeding and not whether
there was sufficient ground for conviction .
Again in the case of Smt. Nagwwa Vs.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Kanjalgi and
other, 1976 (1) ACC 225 (S.C.) while
considering the scope of enquiry under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. , the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that it is extremely limited
only to the ascertainment of truth of
falsehood of the allegations made inthe
complaint ( a) on the basis of the materials
placed by the complainant before the
Court; (b) for the limited purpose of
finding out whether a prima-facie case for
issue of process has been made out; (c) for
deciding the question purely from the point
2 All] C.B. Pandey V. Sri Narain Singh, Minister For Horticulture Deptt. and others

903
of view of complainant without at all
adverting to any defence that the accused
may have. In that case, it has been held by
way of illustration that the order of
magistrate issuing process can be quashed
where the allegations made in the
complainant or the statements of the
witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value made out
absolutely no case against the accused or
the complaint does not disclose the
essential ingredients of an office which is
alleged against accused.

8. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar
and others Vs. State of Bihar and
another 2002 (44) A.C.C., 168 (S.C.) the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the
stage of passing order under Section 203
Cr.P.C. searching sufficient ground tp
convict is not necessary.

9. A perusal of the impugned order
indicates that the same has been passed
after considering the evidence available on
record and there is no illegality in the
same.
There
was
evidence
of
the
complainant to the effect that there was
demand of dowry and due to nonfulfillment of the same, the complainant
was being abused, threatened and beaten as
well. This order of the trial court is
perfectly valid and call for no interference
at this stage.

Revision is accordingly dismissed.

10. However, considering the nature
of the offence, it is provided that if the
revisionists surrender before the Trial
Court within three weeks from today and
move an application for bail, their bail
application
shall
be
disposed
of
expeditiously, if possible, the same day.

11. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the trial court by registered
post A.D.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE UMA NATH SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Misc. Bench No. - 7770 of 2011

Chandra Bhushan Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri
Narain
Singh,
Minister
For
Horticulture Deptt. and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Pande
Sri Rohit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

Constitution of India ,Article 226-Writ
Petition-"person aggrieved" means-who
suffered legal injury or deprived from
having
legal
entitlement-petitioner
alleged office bearer-seeking removal of
the Secretary Horticulture Departmentas not paying heed to the grievance of
employees
association-held-not
aggrieved person-no locus to file the
petition-dismissed.

Held: Para 12

Therefore, in our considered view, the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved in
regard to subject matter involved in the
instant case, hence , he has no locus
standi to file the present Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
Case law discussed:
2003 (5) SCC 413; AIR 1974 SC 1719; AIR
1977 SC 1361; AIR 1976 SC 578