# Santosh Kumar and others Revisionists v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 435
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-05-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2003
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha, K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/santosh-kumar-and-others-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40112
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.- S. 227- Stage of framing chargecourt to see prima-facie evidence against
accused and not to evidence. Held- there
was primafacie evidence.
Case referred to:
2000 (1) JIC 765 (SC)
2001 (42) ACC 39
2001 (42) ACC 469
2001 (42) ACC 840

## Text

2 All] Santosh Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
435
 deliberately to gain time then the court
should lean against acceptance of the
explanation. While condoning the delay
the Court should not forget the opposite
party altogether. It must be borne in mind
that he is a looser and he too would have
incurred quiet a large litigation expenses.
It would be a salutary guidance that when
courts condone the delay due to laches on
the part of the applicant the court shall
compensate the opposite party for his
loss.

In this case explanation for the delay
set up by the appellant was found
satisfactory to the trial court in the
exercise of its description and the High
Court went wrong in upsetting the
finding, more so when the High Court was
exercising revisional jurisdiction."

14. In view of what has been said
above, it is clear that no such error was
committed by the Assistant Settlement
Officer of Consolidation in exercise of his
discretion by condoning the delay in filing
the
appeal
which
may
warrant
interference by this Court under Article
226 of Constitution of India. It has also
not been shown that any great injustice
has been done to the petitioner by
condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Petitioner will have an opportunity to
have his say on merits of the claim before
the Assistant Settlement Officer of
Consolidation. In facts and circumstances
of this case I do not find it a fit case for
interferences
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India.

15. The writ petition lacks merit and
is summarily rejected.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 472 of 2003

Santosh Kumar and others ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Dharmendra Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sunil Kumar
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.- S. 227- Stage of framing chargecourt to see prima-facie evidence against
accused and not to evidence. Held- there
was primafacie evidence.
Case referred to:
2000 (1) JIC 765 (SC)
2001 (42) ACC 39
2001 (42) ACC 469
2001 (42) ACC 840

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. The above two revisions arise out
of the same judgment hence taken up
together for hearing and disposed of.

2. The facts giving rise to the
present revisions are that on the report of
Smt. Minakshi Verma, opposite party no.
2 in revision no. 472 of 2003 the case was
investigated and chargesheet was filed
against revisionists and others in case
crime no. 161/02. This chargesheet was
filed against Santosh Kumar Verma,
Phool Chand Adhupia, Satya Prakash,
Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Anita alias Guddi,
Raj Kumar and Smt. Shashi Verma under
Section 498-A, 307, 323, 506 I.P.C. and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
436
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The Magistrate committed the case to
session court where order for framing of
charges under aforesaid sections was
passed on 28.11.2002. In consequence of
the said order, accused Santosh Kumar
Verma, Satya Prakash, Phool Chand
Adhupia and Raj Kumar Verma were
charged for the offence under Section
323/34, 307/34 and 506 I.P.C. Santosh
Kumar was further charged for the
offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Against
the said order framing the charges, the
accused approached this Court by filing
criminal misc. application no. 40 of 2003
which was decided on 7.1.2003 quashing
the order framing charge and it was
directed that the trial court shall rehear the
parties on the point of framing of charges
under Section 307 I.P.C. and then pass a
speaking order before proceeding to
frame the charge. In compliance of the
said order, the learned trial court heard the
parties' counsel and passed the impugned
order dated 14.2.2003.

3. By the impugned order applicants
Santosh Kumar Verma, Smt. Kamla Devi,
Smt. Anita alias Guddi and co-accused
Smt. Shashi Verma were ordered to be
charged for the offence under Section
307/34 I.P.C. However, co-accused Phool
Chand Adhupia, Satya Prakash and Raj
Kumar Verma were discharged for the
offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C.

4. The revisionists Santosh Kumar,
Smt. Kamla Devi and Smt. Anita alias
Guddi who were ordered to be charged
for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
filed the revision no. 472 of 2003 and
opposite party no. 2 Smt. Minakshi
Verma filed revision no. 487 of 2003
against Phool Chand Adhupia, Satya
Prakash Verma and Raj Kumar Verma as
they were discharged.

5. I have heard the learned counsel
for the parties. Perused the impugned
order. This court by the order dated
7.1.2003 had directed to rehear the parties
on the point of framing of charge under
Section 307 I.P.C. A close scrutiny of the
impugned order shows that there were
two incidents with lady Smt. Minakshi
Verma. One which related to offence
dated 3.3.2002 and the other which
related to the offence dated 3.5.2002. The
order framing above charge under Section
307 I.P.C. was passed on the occurrence
which took place on 3.3.2002, on which
date the kerosene oil was sprinkled on the
body of Smt. Minakshi Verma but
revisionists could not lit the fire as some
acquainted person appeared. However, in
the next occurrence dated 3.5.2002, the
neck of the complainant Smt. Minakshi
Verma was pressed and she was directed
to bring Rs. 8 lacs. The trial court found
that as Smt. Minakshi Verma was asked
to bring a dowry of Rs. 8 lacs hence it
couldn't be said that there was any
intention to kill her by pressing the neck.
It is settled principle that it is the intention
of the accused which is material for
proceeding under Section 307 I.P.C. In
this case the accused had intended to get
dowry hence it cannot be said that they
had any intention to kill informant Smt.
Minakshi Verma. Consequently the order
of the trial judge in respect of this
occurrence
is
perfectly
justified
as
according to the F.I.R. Satya Prakash,
Phool Chand Adhupia and Raj Kumar
Verma were involved in this incident
hence they were rightly discharged for the
offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Santosh Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
437

6. So far as the case of revisionists
of revision no. 472 of 2003 is concerned,
the allegation against them is that they
had sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of
informant Smt. Minakshi Verma but when
someone known to the husband of Smt.
Minakshi Verma appeared at the scene of
occurrence, the accused could not put fire
on her body and lady was saved. The
F.I.R. Annexure-1 contains the recital of
this
occurrence
in
the
body.
The
informant Smt. Minakshi Verma had
mentioned in the F.I.R. that Santosh
Kumar, Smt. Kamla Devi (mother-inlaw), Smt. Anita alias Guddi (sister-inlaw and Shashi Verma (sister-in-law)
sprinkled the kerosene on the body of the
informant Smt. Minakshi Verma and
made an attempt to put fire but did not
succeed by arrival of someone acquainted
to informants husband. This act shows
revisionists intended to kill her and also
made an attempt towards the same by
doing the act of pouring kerosene oil on
the body of informant and making an
attempt to put fire.

7. In the cases for framing charge,
prima facie evidence had to be seen and
this is no stage to weigh the evidence.

8. Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure runs as follows:

"Discharge- If, upon consideration of
the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
against
the
accused, he shall discharge the accused
and record his reasons for so doing."

9. This provision lays down that
accused can be discharged for any offence
only when there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. This
provision of Cr.P.C. has been inter preted
in number of judgments of the Apex
Court. In the case of State of M.P. Vs.
S.B. Johari and others and State of M.P.
Vs. Sudhir Pingle [2000 (1) JIC 765
(SC)], it has been held as follows:

"It is settled law that at the stage of
framing the charge, the Court has to
prima facie consider whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. The Court is not required to
appreciate the evidence and arrive at the
conclusion that the materials produced are
sufficient or not for convicting the
accused. If the Court is satisfied that a
prima facie case is made out for
proceeding further then a charge has to be
framed."

10. In the case of State of Delhi Vs.
Gyan Devi and others [2001 (42) ACC
39) it was held as follows:

"The legal position is well settled
that at the stage of framing of charge the
trial court is not to examine and assess in
detail the materials placed on record by
the prosecution nor is it for the Court to
consider the sufficiency of the materials
to establish the offence alleged against the
accused persons. At the stage of charge
the Court is to examine the materials only
with a view to be satisfied that a prima
facie case of commission of offence
alleged has been made out against the
accused persons.

.....It is to be kept in mind that once
the trial court has framed a charge against
an accused the trial must proceed without
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
438
unnecessary interference by a superior
court and the entire evidence from the
prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for
quashing of a charge before the entire
prosecution evidence has come on record,
should not be entertained sans exceptional
cases."

11. Similar view was taken by the
Apex Court in the cases of Ram Kumar
Laharia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
another [2001 (42) ACC 469) and Smt.
Omwati and another Vs. State (Delhi
Administration) and others [2001 (42)
ACC 840].

12. Thus the allegation set forth in
the F.I.R. and coupled with the evidence
collected during investigation is sufficient
to frame the charge and order of the trial
court does not call for any interference.

Consequently, both the revisions no.
472 of 2003 and 487 of 2003 are devoid
of merit and are hereby dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4222 of 1975

Ram Narain

...Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Kanpur
and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shankata Rai
Sri K.M. Sahai
Sri C.K. Rai
Sri R.M. Sahai
Sri A.K. Banerji
Counsel for the Opposite Parties
Sri R.K. Misra
Sri N.K. Srivastava
Sri Neraj Agarwal
Sri S.N. Agarwal
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act and Land
Reform Act- Sec. 209- Limitation for
brining the suit 3 years- Petitioner being
minor- can not file the suit after elapsed
of 8 years from the date of attaining the
majority.

Held- Para 15

In the present case, admittedly no suit
was filed by respondent no. 4 under
section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition &
Land
Reforms
Act.
After
issue
of
notification dated 29.4.1969, more than
8 years clasped from attaining majority
by respondent no. 4. Period of limitation
as prescribed under Section 209 of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act
was
six
years,
but
since
the
respondents was under disability he was
entitled to the benefit of section 6 of
limitation Act which enable him to file
the suit within three years from attaining
majority.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhusan, J.)

Heard Sri Shankata Rai, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Nagendra Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 4.

By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing of the order dated
25.2.1975 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation
and
the
order
dated
15.1.1971 passed by Settlement Officer of
Consolidation.

Brief facts which emerge from the
pleading of parties are;
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in