# Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 89
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1079 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-lakshmi-poddar-shikha-poddar-anr-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50955
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 & 406 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections
3/5 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 245, 397 & 401 - Revisionists,
married
sisters-in-law
of
complainant,
challenged dismissal of discharge application in
Complaint Case No. 221 of 2004 for alleged
dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty.
Court held: (1) General and omnibus allegations
against
revisionists
without
specific
roles
attributed; no evidence they resided with
complainant or benefited from dowry demands.
(2) Revisionists, living in distant cities (Calcutta,
Thane), unlikely to be involved in matrimonial
discord. (3) Trial court failed to consider lack of
specific allegations and probability of false
implication, mechanically dismissing discharge
application. (4) Supreme Court precedents
emphasize caution against roping in distant
relatives in matrimonial disputes without prima
facie evidence (Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs
St. of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 820; Geeta Mehrotra
Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Preeti Gupta
Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Rajesh
Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472;
Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273; K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452). Revision partly allowed; impugned
order set aside regarding revisionists; matter
remanded for fresh consideration of discharge
application. (Paras 11-21)
Revision Partly Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

3 All. Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
89
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 89
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1079 of 2023

Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar &
Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Ravi Yadav, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastav
(Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 & 406 -
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections
3/5 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 245, 397 & 401 - Revisionists,
married
sisters-in-law
of
complainant,
challenged dismissal of discharge application in
Complaint Case No. 221 of 2004 for alleged
dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty.
Court held: (1) General and omnibus allegations
against
revisionists
without
specific
roles
attributed; no evidence they resided with
complainant or benefited from dowry demands.
(2) Revisionists, living in distant cities (Calcutta,
Thane), unlikely to be involved in matrimonial
discord. (3) Trial court failed to consider lack of
specific allegations and probability of false
implication, mechanically dismissing discharge
application. (4) Supreme Court precedents
emphasize caution against roping in distant
relatives in matrimonial disputes without prima
facie evidence (Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs
St. of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 820; Geeta Mehrotra
Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Preeti Gupta
Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Rajesh
Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472;
Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273; K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018)
14 SCC 452). Revision partly allowed; impugned
order set aside regarding revisionists; matter
remanded for fresh consideration of discharge
application. (Paras 11-21)
Revision Partly Allowed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs St. of Bihar,
AIR 2022 SC 820 (Para 11, 17)

2. Geeta Mehrotra Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC
741 (Para 12, 16, 17)

3. Preeti Gupta Vs St. of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 (Para 12, 15)

4. Rajesh Sharma Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC
472 (Para 12, 13)

5. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273 (Para 12, 14)

6. K. Subba Rao Vs St. of Telangana, (2018) 14
SCC 452 (Para 12, 17)

7. G.VS Rao Vs L.H.VS Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC
693 (Para 12, 16)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Manohar
Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. By means of instant Criminal
Revision the revisionist has assailed the
judgment and order dated 23.12.2023
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2 Gorakhpur in
Complaint Case No.221 of 2004 (Alka
Rani Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others),
whereby application for discharge under
Section 245 Cr.P.C. moved by accused
persons Rajesh Agarwal, Maya Devi,
Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar and
Sunita Tulsyan has been dismissed by the
trial court.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ravi
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists,
Sri Yogendra Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the material on
record.

3. The facts leading to filing of
present
revision
are
that
the
complainant/respondent
No.2
initially
moved an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Gorakhpur on 09.08.2004
which was registered as Misc. Application
No.221 of 2004 with averments that her
marriage with opposite party No.1 Rajesh
Agarwal
was
solemnized
14.04.2002
according to hindu rites and rituals in
arranged manner. She was send off to her
matrimonial home after marriage. However
just after her arrival at her matrimonial
home her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and
sisters-in-law began to tease her for not
bringing sufficient dowry and when she
objected to this, they gave her beating, she
suffered this mall treatment and observed
her matrimonial obligations after sometime
of marriage she came to know that her
husband is suffering from illness. He used
to suffer lunatic bouts from time to time
and his family members were taking
advantage of his situation and did not try to
treat him. His family members used to
provoke him against her and on their
provocation her husband used to beat her.
She also came to know that her husband
was previously married to one Smt. Meena
and she was also subjected to matrimonial
cruelty for demand of dowry and ultimately
the marriage was broken and FIR was
lodged by father of Meena against her
husband and family members under Section
323, 504, 506, 498A of IPC. The family
members of her husband exerted pressure
on her to get her third pregnancy aborted
and when she did not agree to this, they
abused and harassed her. During that period
she knew that these people were trying to
kill her and they turned her out from their
home after sometime, she reached at her
parental place any how. She delivered a
male child on 01.11.2003 in private
hospital at Gorakhpur. Her in-laws and
husband visited her, but did not spend any
money. Her sisters-in-law Lakshmi Poddar
and Sunita Tulsyan and other family
members were also exerting pressure on
her to get her pregnancy aborted.

4. Learned court below vide order
dated 28.08.2004 directed to register the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as
complaint and after recording statement of
the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and her witnesses Thakur Prasad Gupta,
Ramesh Chandra Sharma under Section
202
Cr.P.C.,
summoned
the
accused
persons vide order dated 13.05.2005 for
charge under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506,
406 of IPC and Section 3/5 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. The accused persons
challenged the summoning order with
prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
complaint case No.221 of 2004 by filing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.4228
of 2006, which was dismissed vide order
dated 12.10.2018 passed by this Court.

5. Learned court below recorded the
statement of the complainant Alka Rani
under Section 244 Cr.P.C., wherein she was
also cross examined at length on behalf of
the accused persons at precharge stage.
Thakur Prasad Gupta, father of the
complainant was also examined as PW2 at
the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C., in which
they supported complaint version.

6. Accused Rajesh Agarwal and others
moved and application under Section 245
Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2022 with a prayer to
discharge them with averment that they
3 All. Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
91
have been falsely implicated in the case.
Accused Rajesh Agarwal, the elder brother
of the husband of the complainant is 80%
disabled and bedridden. The complainant
and her family members themselves
misbehaved with the accused persons.
Rajesh Agarwal, the husband of the
complainant filed a petition under Section 9
of the hindu marriage act for restitution of
conjugal rights on 18.02.2004, in which
notice was issued to the complainant and
said petition was decided on 07.12.2005
exparte, but the complainant has not
complied with the decree of court and did
not join the husband instead, she file an
application for setting aside the decree. On
17.03.2004 the complainant and her family
members assaulted the husband Rajesh
Agarwal
and
declined
to
send
the
complainant with him. After which he
lodged an FIR vide C-6/4 under Section
406, 506 IPC against the complainant and
her parents, in which chargesheet has been
filed. The present complaint was filed by
the complainant with false allegations
against the accused persons and the
accused persons are liable to be discharged.

7.

Learned
court
below
vide
impugned
order
dated
23.12.2022
considered and facts and evidence of the
case. The facts of the case as well as the
evidence adduced by the complainant at the
stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. in light of
documents
available
on
record
and
dismissed the application under Section
245 Cr.P.C. with finding that there is ample
evidence against accused persons at this
stage for framing charge against them and
putting demand prior.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned
order passed by learned Magistrate the
present revisionists who are married sistersin-law (Nanads) of the complainant have
preferred present revision with averments
that revisionists were already married at the
time of marriage of complainant and their
brother Rajesh Agarwal. The Omnibus and
general allegations are levelled against
them in the complaint only with a view to
harass them, as they are sisters of the
husband of the complainant. However,
revisionist No.1 Smt. Lakshmi Poddar alias
Shikha Poddar was residing in Calcutta at
the time of incident and Smt. Sunita
Tulsyan was residing in district Thane,
Maharashtra at that time. They are
presently residing in Hyderabad and
Maharashtra alongwith their husband and
family.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionists
submitted that no specific allegation has
been made against the revisionists in
complaint as well as in evidence of PW1
and 2 recorded by the court below, they are
not supposed to be beneficiary of any
demand of dowry made by the husband or
his immediate family as alleged. They have
not been attributed any specific role in the
offence, learned court below dismissed the
discharge application with respect to
present revisionists also in mechanical
manner without considering the role
attributed to accused persons. They are not
concerned
with
matrimonial
discord
between the complainant and her husband.
They have been implicated as accused in
complaint only with a view to harass them
due to their relationship with the husband
of the complainant.

10. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2 submitted
that the revisionists although married
sisters-in-law of the complainant have
played active role in harassment and torture
of the complainant. They were also hand in
grove with co-accused persons in demand
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of dowry and subjecting the complainant to
matrimonial cruelty. The complainant and
her witnesses had given ample evidence
regarding
complicity
of
the
accused
persons including the revisionists in their
sworn testimony before the court under
Section 244 Cr.P.C. The grounds taken in
discharge application are misleading and
baseless. The revision deserves to be
dismissed.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionists placed reliance on judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of
Bihar and others; AIR 2022 SC 820, this
was a case under Sections 341, 323, 379,
354, 498A read with Section 34 of Cr.P.C.
The accused persons had challenged the
summoning order under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before the High Court, but same
was dismissed by High Court. By the
impugned order Hon'ble Supreme Court
allowed Special Leave to Appeal against
order of High Court with observations that
" therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence
of any specific role attributed to the
Accused Appellants, it would be unjust if
the Appellants are forced to go through the
tirbulation of a trial, i.e., general and
omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a
situation where the relatives of the
complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by
this Court in varied instances, that a
criminal trial leading to an eventual
acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
Accused, and such an exercise must
therefore be discouraged.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also
observed in aforesaid case as under:-

"12. Before we delve into
greater detail on the nature and content of
allegations made, it becomes pertinent to
mention that incorporation of Section 498A
of Indian Penal Code was aimed at
preventing cruelty committed upon a
woman by her husband and her in- laws, by
facilitating
rapid
state
intervention.
However, it is equally true, that in recent
times, matrimonial litigation in the country
has also increased significantly and there is
a
greater
disaffection
and
friction
surrounding the institution of marriage,
now, more than ever. This has resulted in an
increased tendency to employ provisions
such as 498A Indian Penal Code as
instruments to settle personal scores
against the husband and his relatives.

13. This Court in its judgment in
Rajesh Sharma and Ors. v. State of U.P.
and Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has
observed:

"1 4 . Section 498-A was inserted
in the statute with the laudable object of
punishing cruelty at the hands of husband
or his relatives against a wife particularly
when such cruelty had potential to result in
suicide or murder of a woman as
mentioned in the statement of Objects and
Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The
expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers
conduct which may drive the woman to
commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or
harassment with a view to coerce her to
meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of
serious concern that large number of cases
continue to be filed under already referred
to some of the statistics from the Crime
Records Bureau. This Court had earlier
noticed the fact that most of such
complaints are filed in the heat of the
moment over trivial issues. Many of such
complaints are not bona fide. At the time of
filing of the complaint, implications and
consequences are not visualized. At times
such complaints lead to uncalled for
3 All. Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
93
harassment not only to the Accused but
also to the complainant. Uncalled for
arrest may ruin the chances of settlement."

14. Previously, in the landmark
judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar and Anr.(2014) 8 SCC 273,
it was also observed:

"4. There is a phenomenal
increase in matrimonial disputes in recent
years. The institution of marriage is greatly
revered in this country. Section 498-A
Indian Penal Code was introduced with
avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her
husband and his relatives. The fact that
Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has
lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
provisions that are used as weapons rather
than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the
husband and his relatives arrested under
this provision. In a quite number of cases,
bed-ridden
grandfathers
and
grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living
abroad for decades are arrested."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta and
Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. : (2010)
7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:

"32. It is a matter of common
experience that most of these complaints
Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial
issues without proper deliberations. We
come across a large number of such
complaints which are not even bona fide
and are filed with oblique motive. At the
same time, rapid increase in the number of
genuine cases of dowry harassment are
also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned Members of the
Bar have enormous social responsibility
and obligation to ensure that the social
fiber of family life is not ruined or
demolished.
They
must
ensure
that
exaggerated versions of small incidents
should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are
filed either on their advice or with their
concurrence. The learned Members of the
Bar who belong to a noble profession must
maintain its noble traditions and should
treat every complaint Under Section 498A
as a basic human problem and must make
serious endeavour to help the parties in
arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem. They must discharge their
duties to the best of their abilities to ensure
that social fiber, peace and tranquility of
the society remains intact. The members of
the Bar should also ensure that one
complaint should not lead to multiple
cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of
filing of the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualized
by the complainant that such complaint can
lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, Accused and
his close relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice
is to find out the truth and punish the guilty
and protect the innocent. To find out the
truth is a herculean task in majority of
these
complaints.
The
tendency
of
implicating husband and all his immediate
relations is also not uncommon. At times,
even after the conclusion of criminal trial,
it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The
courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration
while
dealing
with
matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and
never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have
an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be scrutinized with great care and
circumspection.

36. Experience reveals that long
and protracted criminal trials lead to
rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the
relationship amongst the parties. It is also
a matter of common knowledge that in
cases filed by the complainant if the
husband or the husband's relations had to
remain in jail even for a few days, it would
ruin the chances of amicable settlement
altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra and Anr.
v. State of U.P. and Anr. : (2012) 10 SCC
741, it was observed:

"21. It would be relevant at this
stage to take note of an apt observation of
this Court recorded in the matter of G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Ors. reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held
that the High Court should have quashed
the complaint arising out of a matrimonial
dispute wherein all family members had
been roped into the matrimonial litigation
which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we
entirely agree that:

"There has been an outburst
of matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully.
But
little
matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in
heinous crimes in which elders of the
family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and
brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as Accused
in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here
for not encouraging matrimonial litigation
so that the parties may ponder over their
defaults
and
terminate
the
disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it
takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young"
days in chasing their cases in different
courts." The view taken by the judges in
this matter was that the courts would not
encourage such disputes."

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v.
The State of Telangana : (2018) 14 SCC
452, it was also observed that:

"6 . The Courts should be careful
in proceeding against the distant relatives
in
crimes
pertaining
to
matrimonial
disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the
basis of omnibus allegations unless specific
instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out."

18.
The
above-mentioned
decisions clearly demonstrate that this
Court has at numerous instances expressed
concern over the misuse of Section 498A
Indian Penal Code and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the
Accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this Court by
way of its judgments has warned the courts
from proceeding against the relatives and
in-laws of the husband when no prima facie
case is made out against them."

13. Section 245 of Cr.P.C. reads
as under:-

245. When accused shall be
discharged.
3 All. Smt. Lakshmi Poddar @ Shikha Poddar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
95

" (1) If, upon taking all the
evidence referred to in section 244, the
Magistrate considers, for reasons to be
recorded, that no case against the accused
has been made out which, if unrebutted,
would
warrant
his
conviction,
the
Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall
be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from
discharging the accused at any previous
stage of the case if, for reasons to be
recorded by such Magistrate, he considers
the charge to be groundless."

14. The revisionists are married
sisters-in-law (Nanad) of the complainant.
The complainant has admitted in her cross
examination under Section 244 Cr.P.C. that
present revisionists were already married
when she came to know after marriage and
they were living with there respective
spouse, they have taken specific case that
they were implicated in the case wrongly in
a sense that matter pertains to inter se
dispute between Rajesh Agarwal and the
complainant.

15. Omnibus and general allegations
are levelled against the accused in the
complaint as well as in the evidence of the
witnesses recorded under Section 244
Cr.P.C. together with co-accused persons,
accused Rajesh Agarwal, the husband of
the complainant, Maya Devi mother-in-law,
Krishna Mohan Agarwal brother-in-law
(Jeth) and Suman Agarwal (Jethani).
Discharge application under Section 245
Cr.P.C. was filed by four accused persons
barring Jeth and Jethani of the complainant,
which was dismissed by impugned order
dated 23.12.2022 by learned trial court with
observations that there is sufficient grounds
to put the accused persons on trial for
charges levelled against them. Out of four
accused
persons,
whose
discharge
application
has
been
dismissed,
by
impugned order, this revision has been
preferred only by two accused Smt.
Lakshmi Poddar and Smt. Sunita Tulsyan
who are married sisters-in-law of the
complainant. They are residing at distant
places, there is no allegation in the
complaint or in statement of the witnesses
that revisionists were living together with
the complainant and her husband at their
parental place.

16. This is admitted fact that they
were married prior to the marriage of
Rajesh Agarwal and complainant. The
complainant has stated in her evidence that
her sisters-in-law are greedy people and
used to visit her matrimonial home and
gave her beating, and all the accused
persons got her pregnancy aborted. But
there is no medical evidence in support of
this version.

17. The case of the revisionists is
squarely covered by judgment of Supreme
Court in Kahkashan @ Sonam and
others Vs State of Bihar and others and
in Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State
of U.P. in which Hon'ble Apex Court has
filed the grave situation where all the
family members and relatives of husband
are roped in complaint under Section 498
of IPC by way of general and omnibus
allegation made in course of matrimonial
dispute.

18. The court below, while dismissing
the discharge application has failed to
notice the role of the revisionists and the
probability of their false implication, as
these are married sisters-in-law of the
complainant who are stated to have been
living at far away place during the period
when offence of matrimonial cruelty and
demand of dowry was practised against the
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant. They are not supposed to be
beneficiary of any demand of dowry made
by co-accused persons.

19. The application for rejection of
discharge
application
requires
reconsideration in respect of the present
revisionists
in
light
of
foregoing
discussions and the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court cited above.

20. The revision stands partly
allowed.

21. The impugned order passed by
learned court below is partly set-aside, in
so far as it relates to present revisionists
and learned Magistrate is directed to
consider the prayer for discharge made by
present revisionists a fresh in accordance
with law after giving opportunity of
hearing to both the sides.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 96
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1206 of 2023

Bantu & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Kunwar Bhadur Dixit, Sri Anurag Shukla,
Sri Anuraj Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 227, 228, &
397 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
376 & 120B - Discharge Application - Scope
of Revisional Jurisdiction - Prima Facie Case -
Consideration of Evidence at Charge Framing
Stage
The revisionists, Bantu and Ramveer Singh,
challenged the order dated 13.02.2023 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in
Sessions Trial No. 189 of 2022, rejecting their
discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
in Case Crime No. 16 of 2022 (Sections 376,
120B IPC). The FIR, lodged by Nema Devi on
23.02.2022, alleged that on 20.02.2022, Bantu
lured her to Ramveer Singh's tubewell under the
pretext of negotiation, where Ramveer raped
her, and co-accused Prem Narayan attempted to
outrage her modesty, with Bantu involved in the
conspiracy. The revisionists argued that the FIR
was false, motivated by a property dispute
involving an agreement to sell, and supported
by a pen drive allegedly recording the victim's
threat to falsely implicate them. They also cited
contradictions in the victim's St.ments under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., lack of medical
evidence, and delay in FIR lodging. Held: The
court, relying on Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh
Chander ((2012) 9 SCC 460), St. of Orissa Vs
Debendra Nath Padhi ((2005) 1 SCC 568), and
other precedents, held that at the chargeframing stage, the trial court's role is limited to
determining if a prima facie case exists based
on prosecution materials, without meticulously
weighing evidence or considering defense
materials like the pen drive. The victim's
consistent St.ments under Sections 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. established a prima facie case for rape
and conspiracy. The alleged motive of a
property dispute and the pen drive evidence
could not be considered at this stage, as per
Debendra Nath Padhi. The trial court's order
was neither illegal nor arbitrary, as it correctly
applied judicial mind to the prosecution's
evidence.

Revision was dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460

2. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005)
1 SCC 568