# Sukhvanti Devi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1466
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 1720 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukhvanti-devi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45517
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections-498-A and 304-B - Appeal against
conviction.

Death, being an unnatural death, within seven
years of marriage, coupled with accusation of
demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it
against accused in-laws was there in the first
information report. The same was also there in
2 All. Sukhvanti Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1467
the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. Autopsy examination report as well as
inquest proceeding reveal that the death was
owing to ante mortem hanging and asphyxia as
a result of it. (Para 5)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicants and since the offence
under Section 506 I.P.C. has been made,
cognizable,
non-bailable
and
noncompoundable vide above mentioned
notification in the State of U.P., the
provisions of Section 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. will
not be applicable to the present case.

Accordingly,
the
impugned
charge sheet and the impugned order of
cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate
are not liable to be quashed and the prayer
for quashing the same is refused.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
relied upon the judgment of this Court
passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1212
of 2020, Charan Singh and 3 others vs.
State of U.P. and another, in which
initially the NCR No. 104 of 2013, under
sections 427, 504, 506 IPC was lodged at
P.S.
Raya,
District
Mathura.
After
investigation, the police has submitted
charge sheet against the applicants under
sections 427, 504, 506 IPC before the
concerned court below and this Court has
held that since the report of the police
officer
after
investigation,
disclosing
commission of no-cognizable offence is to
be deemed to be a complaint and the
police officer, who submitted the report
has been deemed to be a complaint. In
other words, the charge-sheet submitted by
the police in a non-cognizable offence
shall be treated to be a complaint and the
procedure prescribed for hearing of the
complaint case shall be applicable to that
case. Since, in this case charge-sheet
submitted under setions 504, 506 IPC. The
judgment of this Court in Charan Singh
and 3 others (supra) relied by the learned
counsel for the applicants is not applicable
to the present case in that judgment neither
the U.P. Notification No. Notification No.
777/VIII-94(2)-87 dated July 31, 1989 nor
the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Mata Sevak Upadhyaya and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others (supra) was
discussed in which the validity of above
Notification held valid and affirm that the
offence under section 506 IPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable.

10. With the above observations, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1466

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1720 of 2020

Sukhvanti Devi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Sri Abhishek
Kumar Saroj

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections-498-A and 304-B - Appeal against
conviction.

Death, being an unnatural death, within seven
years of marriage, coupled with accusation of
demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it
against accused in-laws was there in the first
information report. The same was also there in
2 All. Sukhvanti Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1467
the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. Autopsy examination report as well as
inquest proceeding reveal that the death was
owing to ante mortem hanging and asphyxia as
a result of it. (Para 5)

Application u/s 482 rejected. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Amrawati and another Vs. St. of U.P. 2004
(57) ALR 290,

2. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This Application, under Section
482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the
Applicants, Shakuntla Devi and Vijay
Shankar Patel, with a prayer for setting
aside entire proceeding of Case No.
UPSN040069602019 of 2019 (Sate vs.
Vijay Shankar Patel and others), arising
out of Case Crime No.0069 of 2019, under
Sections-498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal
Code (In short 'IPC'), read with Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station-Aurai, District-Bhadohi, pending
in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhadohi at Gyanpur, alongwith Charge
Sheet No.90A of 2019, dated 13.10.2019,
as well as cognizance taking order, dated
16.11.2019.

2. Learned counsel for applicants
argued that in this very case crime number,
, ingredients, required for constituting
offence of dowry death, were lacking. A
suicidal note was there and it was held to
be written by the deceased herself, under
her own handwriting by Forensic Science
Laboratory, even then, this charge sheet
has been filed and cognizance has been
taken, whereas, this Court in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.44601 of 2019,
Manish Kumar Patel vs. State of U.P, vide
orderm, dated 23.10.2019, has held that
ingredients of offence of dowry death were
not there and suicidal note was there,
which
revealed
that
deceased
had
committed suicide because she wanted to
be Hermit, but, to respect wish of her
parents, she got married, though never
resumed her married life. Hence, for this
accusation, with full evidence of no
offence, even then, charge sheet has been
filed and cognizance has been taken upon
it. Hence, this Application, with above
prayer.

3. Learned AGA, representing State
of U.P., has vehemently opposed this
Application.

4. From very perusal of the order,
dated 23.10.2019, passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.44601 of 2019,
Manish Kumar Patel vs. State, it is
apparent that learned counsel for applicant
had argued before that Court that suicidal
note is a question to be seen during trial
and it was there that the deceased had
committed suicide upon her own volition
and it was made part of Case Diary, hence,
bail was claimed and the Court, while
granting bail, had specifically mentioned
that
it
was
a
bail
order,
without
commenting on merit of case and
observations made over suicidal note was
with no reflection on the merit of the case.
Meaning thereby, in that order, Coordinate
Bench has not commented on merits of the
case. Fact of suicidal note and suicidal
death is a question of fact to be seen
during trial and this Court, in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matrix because the same is under the
domain of Trial court.

5. Death, being an unnatural death,
within seven years of marriage, coupled with
accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty
with regard to it against accused in-laws was
there in the first information report. The same
was also there in the statement, recorded, under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Autopsy examination
report as well as inquest proceeding reveal that
the death was owing to ante mortem hanging
and asphyxia as a result of it, the size, situation
and other internal situation of organs were
indicative that though it was shown to be a
suicidal death, but, it was manipulated to be a
suicidal death. But, it is to be seen during trial
by the Trial court. It was very well there at the
time of objection in response to Bail
Application and mentioned in the order passed,
while deciding Bail Application. Hence, at this
juncture, there is no ground for granting any
indulgence for reliefs prayed for.

6. Accordingly, this Application, being
devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and it
stands dismissed accordingly.

7. However, it is directed that if the
applicants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today and
apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be
considered and decided in view of the settled
law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati
and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

8. For a period of 30 days from today, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

9. In case, if the applicants do not appear
before the Court below within the aforesaid
period, coercive action shall be taken against
them.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1468

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1950 of 2020

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

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shahroze Khan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal
CodeSections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506, 352 -
Appeal against conviction.

 At the stage of charge the court is not
required to consider pros and cons of the case
and to hold an enquiry to find out truth. Even
in a case of grave or strong suspicion charge
has been framed. The court has to consider
broad probabilities of the case, total effect of
the evidence and the documents produced
including basic infirmities, if any. (para 5)

It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the
stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is
required to apply his judicial mind only with a
view to taking cognizance of the offence, or.
The learned Magistrate is not required to
evaluate the merits of the material or evidence
in support of the complaint, because the
Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to
find out whether the materials would lead to a
conviction or not. (para 7)