# Smt. Munni v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 1115
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-12-16
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-munni-v-state-of-u-p-41394
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439Bail-offence under Section 498-A, 304-Breadwith 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act-un
natural death within 7 years from
marriage-deceased was expelled out
from her in laws application house
applicant
is
Jethani-No
specific
roll
assigned plea of alibi-High Court had
already directed to be considered as the
time of Trail-husband of applicant being
class I Officer under his influence twice
final report submitted without proper
investigation-three anti mortem injuriesfor fair Trail-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submission made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
and learned counsel for the complainant
and from the perusal of the record it
appears that it is case in which without
doing the proper investigation, the final
report was submitted by the I.O., the
same has been rejected by the learned
Magistrate concerned, the death of the
deceased has taken place within 7 years
of her marriage, it was unnatural death,
the deceased has sustained 3 ante
mortem injuries, to ensure the fair trial
and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, the applicant is
not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

## Text

3 All] Smt. Munni V. State of U.P.
1115
expiry of two months from the date of
retirement."

11. In view of the above the writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to release the retiral dues of the
deceased employee to the petitioners
within a period of two months from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order alongwith interest at the rate of
10% per annum which shall be payable
from the date of filing of the present writ
petition, i.e., 23.07.2007 till the amount is
actually paid. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to cost which is quantified to
Rs.10,000/-. However, the respondent no.
2 shall be at liberty to make appropriate
disciplinary inquiry in the matter and to
find out the officials responsible for such
extraordinary delay in payment of retiral
benefits of the deceased employee to the
petitioners and to realize the amount of
interest and cost awarded under this order
from such officer(s)/ employee(s) as the
case may be.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail No. 26985 of 2009.

Smt. Munni

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri V.M. Zaidi
Sri S.M.G. Asghar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Kameshwar Singh
A.G.A.
Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439Bail-offence under Section 498-A, 304-Breadwith 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act-un
natural death within 7 years from
marriage-deceased was expelled out
from her in laws application house
applicant
is
Jethani-No
specific
roll
assigned plea of alibi-High Court had
already directed to be considered as the
time of Trail-husband of applicant being
class I Officer under his influence twice
final report submitted without proper
investigation-three anti mortem injuriesfor fair Trail-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 6

Considering the facts, circumstances of
the case, submission made by learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.
and learned counsel for the complainant
and from the perusal of the record it
appears that it is case in which without
doing the proper investigation, the final
report was submitted by the I.O., the
same has been rejected by the learned
Magistrate concerned, the death of the
deceased has taken place within 7 years
of her marriage, it was unnatural death,
the deceased has sustained 3 ante
mortem injuries, to ensure the fair trial
and without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, the applicant is
not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior
Counsel, assisted by Sri S.M.Asghar,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri Kameshwar
Singh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant and perused the
record.

2. This bail application has been
moved by the applicant Smt. Munni with
a prayer that she may be released on bail
in case crime No. 247 of 2005 under
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and section
3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The facts, in brief, of this case are
that the FIR has been lodged by Harpal
Singh on 14.10.2005 at 5.00 a.m. in
respect of the incident which had occurred
on 13.10.2005. It is alleged that the
marriage of the deceased Munesh was
solemnized on 30.6.2001 with the coaccused Mukesh, from their wedlock, a
female child was born, on the day of
incident, she was aged about 3 years. The
in-laws of the deceased were not satisfied
with the dowry given in the marriage,
they were demanding a car, on account of
non-fulfilment of the dowry, the deceased
was expelled from her house, she resided
at the house of the first informant for
many months, thereafter, a panchayat was
arranged in which the applicant and other
co-accused persons asked to fulfil the
demand of dowry, any how, they were
pressurised to keep the deceased at their
house, thereafter, the deceased was
subjected to cruelty. On 13.10.2005 at
about 2.00 p.m., the uncle of the first
informant namely Bijendra Singh, Raj
Singh and Anil went to meet the deceased
at her residence, they saw that the
deceased was lying on her bed in a bad
condition, she disclosed that poison was
forcibly administered to her by her
husband Mukesh, co-accused Veer Singh,
applicant Munni and co-accused Shimla,
she asked to bring the hospital, thereafter,
she was taken to Naveen Hospital,
Greater Noida from where she was
referred to Fortes Hospital where she died
during treatment. According to the post
mortem examination report, the deceased
has sustained 3 ante mortem injuries, the
cause of death could not be ascertained,
hence
viscera
was
preserved.
The
applicant applied for bail before the
Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, the
same was rejected on 7.9.2009.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant is
jethani of the deceased, she was having no
concern with the demand of dowry and
she was having no concern with the
family affairs of the deceased, the
allegation regarding demand of dowry
and subjecting the deceased to the cruelty
is absolutely false and baseless, the
husband of the deceased is a class -1
officer, he is Deputy Commissioner,
Trade Tax, he was posted at Moradabad,
the applicant along with her minor
daughter was living with her husband at
Moradabad, she was living separately
with the deceased and her husband, she
was not living at Noida where the alleged
occurrence had taken place. The matter
initially investigated by the local police,
who collected the evidence of separate
living, it was found that on the day of
alleged incident, she was in Assam but the
investigation was transferred to CB-CID
who recorded the statement of Dr. Amit
Saxena of Naveen Hospital who stated
that the deceased was brought by Nitin
Bhati in the hospital where she admitted
on 13.10.2005 at 2.45 p.m. it was told by
Nitin Bhati that the deceased had taken
white powder at that time no injury was
seen on her person. At that time she was
conscious, she was referred to the Fortis
Hospital, Noida, the viscera was sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for its
examination, the report dated 16.4.2006
shows that poison was not found in the
viscera. There is no evidence that the
deceased was subjected to cruelty by the
applicant and other co-accused persons.
The parents of the applicant are resident
of Assam State, the applicant visited the
3 All] Smt. Munni V. State of U.P.
1117
house of her parent on the eve of Durga
Pooja, the husband of the applicant has
also applied for station leave and casual
leave to visit Assam on 7.10.2005, they
travelled on 8.10.2005 in North East
Express from Aligarh to Rangia Station
(Assam) where she lived upto 16.10.2005
at her parental house. The husband of the
applicant get the information regarding
the death of the deceased on 13.10.2009.
On 14.10.2005, the applicant came to
know that she had been the main accused
in the present case, the I.O. has collected
the evidence regarding plea of alibi taken
by husband of the applicant Veer Singh,
the calls detail have also been collected
by the I.O. showing that the applicant and
her husband were in Assam. Thereafter,
the final report dated 23.10.2006 was
submitted by the I.O. mentioning therein
that the applicant and other co-accused
were falsely implicated whereas the
deceased had committed suicide but the
final report submitted by the I.O. was
protested
by
the
first
informant.
Considering
the
same,
the
learned
magistrate concerned rejected the final
report
and
directed
for
further
investigation. After further investigation
also, the final report was submitted but
the learned magistrate concerned has
rejected the final report without any
proper
reason
and
summoned
the
applicant to face the trial. The applicant is
in jail since 3.9.2009, she is an innocent
lady, she may be released on bail.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel appearing on behalf the
complainant that in this case, the deceased
has been killed by the applicant and other
co-accused persons by administering the
poison forcibly. According to the post
mortem examination report, the deceased
had sustained 3 ante mortem injuries in
which injury no. 1 was abrasion on the
left arm, injury no.2 was contusion over
the left side neck and injury no.3 was
radish contusion on chest. It shows that
the force was used in administering the
poison. On the same day she was admitted
in Naveen Hospital, the statement of Dr.
Amit Saxena was recorded, who stated
that the deceased had taken white powder.
In final diagnosis of Naveen Hospital, the
case of poisoning has been clearly
mentioned. The husband of the applicant
is very powerful person, he is Deputy
Commissioner, Trade Tax since very
beginning,
he
was
influencing
the
investigation, he successfully obtained the
report of Public Analyst that no poison
was found in the viscera, the same was
objected, the remaining part of the viscera
was again sent to Vidhi Vigyan Prayog
Shala, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow but the
report dated 10.5.2007 of Joint Director
shows that in the said sample, no tissue
was sent, only 5 mg. dirty liquid was sent.
It shows that the influence of the husband
of the applicant was working every
where. It is also surprising that in this
case due to influence of the applicant and
her family members, the I.O. submitted
the final report, the same was rejected by
learned Magistrate concerned and order
for further investigation was passed, even
then the final report was submitted, after
further investigation, the same has been
rejected by the learned CJM Gautam
Budh
Nagar
on
23.10.2007
and
summoned the applicant and other coaccused to face the trial. The order of the
trial court dated 23.10.2007 has been
challenged by the applicant and other coaccused Veer Singh, Smt. Shimla before
this court by way of filing Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1887 of 2008, the order
dated 23.10.2007 was affirmed by this
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
Court and application filed by the
applicant and other co-accused persons
was disposed of. So far as the plea of alibi
is concerned, the same may be taken at
the time of the trial. In this case the death
of the deceased has occurred within 7
years of marriage of the deceased, the
death was unnatural, therefore, the
applicant may not be released on bail.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case, submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for
the complainant and from the perusal of
the record it appears that it is case in
which
without
doing
the
proper
investigation,
the
final
report
was
submitted by the I.O., the same has been
rejected
by
the
learned
Magistrate
concerned, the death of the deceased has
taken place within 7 years of her
marriage, it was unnatural death, the
deceased has sustained 3 ante mortem
injuries, to ensure the fair trial and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the applicant is not
entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is
refused.

Accordingly
this
application
is
rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73502 of 2005

Nabi Jan Qureshi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.N. Yadav
Sri P.K. Pandey
S.C.

(A) U.P. Nagar Palika Centerlised Service
Rules, 1968 (as amended in 2004)-Rule
73 (3)-suspension of executive officerorder passed as per dictation of superior
authority without application of mind not
sustainable.

(B) Words and Phrauges-misconductPetitioner working as executive officerduring
inspection,
Commissioner
noticed-non supply of drinking water,
sanitation,
sewage
and
drainage
arrangements-can
be
treated
as
inefficiency but can not be termed as
misconduct
suspension
order
wholly
unwarranted.

Held: Para 12 & 16

The responsibility of Executive Officer is
to carry out the functions as per policy
decision taken by elected representative
of the local body. Unless there is
material to so that the writ petitioner in
a particular manner was to act or omit
but he defied and failed to do so, it
cannot be said that some deficiency in
observing certain statutory functions of
the local body would per se constitute
misconduct

Thus
an
act
does
not
amount
to
misconduct on the part of the concerned
employee unless it could be shown that
he is guilty of acting or omitting his duty
deliberately which he is otherwise liable
to perform. Hence also, I do not find that
any departmental inquiry could have
been initiated against the petitioner on
the allegations as contained in the
impugned order of suspension. In my
view, for this reason also, the writ
petition deserves to sustain.