# Tetri Devi v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 6 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-06-03
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16157 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tetri-devi-v-state-of-u-p-52160
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
125
(3)
-
Revision against the order directing the
payment of arrears from the month of
March 2021 to September 2022 i.e
beyond the period of one year-Coercive
measure should not be adopted where
the wife or any claimant under Section
125
Cr.P.C
has
not
been
pursuing
recovery of arrears for over a year but
that does not mean that the right to
recover arrears is lost-Other modes of
recovery can be adopted to as may be
considered by the court concerned to be
justified-Petition disposed of with the
direction arrears be deducted from the
salary of Applicant from the month of
July 2024 till the entire arrears of
maintenance is satisfied.(Para 2, 9, 10,
14) (E-15)

List of Cases referred:

## Text

6 All. Tetri Devi Vs. State of U.P.
81
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
(emphasis by Court)

14. The third criteria where an FIR
may
be
quashed
is
"where
the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose
commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused." The third criteria
clearly applies in this case, inasmuch as,
the first petitioner, during investigation
when produced before the Magistrate said
in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
that the allegations in the FIR were
absolutely without basis.

16. In the circumstances, we allow
this writ petition and quash the impugned
FIR giving rise to Case Crime No.82 of
2024, under Section 363 IPC, Police
Station-Bansi, District-Siddharth Nagar.

17. In addition, we issue a mandamus
to the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the Station
House
Officer,
Police
Station-Bansi,
District-Siddharthnagar to ensure that the
first petitioner goes wherever she likes and
stays with whomsoever she wants, without
any hinderance from Mohd. Jaheer or any
other member of her family. It will also be
the duty of the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the
Station House Officer, Police StationBansi, District-Siddharthnagar, to ensure
that Mohd. Jaheer or any other member of
the first petitioner's family, do not harm
her, in any manner, whatsoever.

18. In the event, any harm or injury
comes to the first petitioner then the S.P.
Siddharthnagar and the Station House
Officer,
Police
Station-Bansi,
Siddharthnagar,
would
be
personally
answerable to this Court.

19. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar
and the Station House Officer, Police
Station-Bansi, Siddharthnagar through the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siddharthnagar
by Monday.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 81
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16157 of 2024

Tetri Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, Sri Rajat Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A & 304-B -
Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 - Section
3/4 - Trial Court's Role in Bail Rights -
To ensure that the right of bail of the
applicant is not frustrated by arbitrary
demands
of
sureties
or
onerous
conditions which are unrelated to the
socioeconomic status of the applicant.
(Para - 8)

Mother-in-law of deceased did not demand
dowry
or
interfere
in
her
husband's
matrimonial
life
-
deceased
was
temperamental - believed her husband was
having an affair, leading to depression -
committed suicide by hanging herself -
applicant having no criminal history - bail of
applicant rejected by trial court. (Para - 4,5)

HELD: - Direction to trial court to fix the
sureties after due application of mind following
the court's ruling in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P.
through the Principal Secretary Home Deptt.
(Para -7)

Bail Granted. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

Arvind Singh Vs St. of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of
2023)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Matter is taken up in the revised
call.

2. By means of the the bail
application the applicant has prayed to be
enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.68 of
2024 at Police Station-Nagra, DistrictBallia, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC
and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
1961. The applicant is in jail since
15.03.2024

3. The bail application of the
applicant was rejected by the learned trial
court on 02.04.2024.

4. The following arguments made by
Shri Prabhat Kumr Singh, learned counsel
on behalf of the applicant, which could not
be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi
Chaddha, learned AGA from the record,
entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

1. The applicant is the mother-inlaw of the deceased.

2. The applicant never demanded
dowry or torture the deceased nor did she
interfere in the matrimonial life of the
deceased and her husband.

3.
The
deceased
was
a
temperamental lady. The deceased was led
to believe that her husband was having
extramarital affair. She became depressed.

4. On the fateful day, the
deceased succumbed to depression and
took extreme step of ending her life. She
committed suicide by hanging herself.

5. The postmortem report opines
that;

i. The cause of death as asphyxia
due to antemortem hanging.

ii. The hyoid bone was intact.

iii. Ligature marks are reference
which are consistent with the hanging.

6. The applicant did not aid or
abet the suicide.
6 All. Subodh Kumar Nigam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
83

7. The applicant does not have
any criminal history apart from the instant
case.

8. The applicant is not a flight risk.
The applicant being a law abiding citizen has
always cooperated with the investigation and
undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There
is no possibility of her influencing witnesses,
tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

5. In the light of the preceding
discussion
and
without
making
any
observations on the merits of the case, the
bail application is allowed.

6. Let the applicant-Tetri Devi be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number, on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court below. The following
conditions be imposed in the interest of
justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence or influence any witness
during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted.

7. The learned trial court is directed to
fix the sureties after due application of mind
in light of the judgement rendered by this
Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P.
Thru.
Prin.
Secy.
Home
Deptt.
(Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

8. The learned trial court shall ensure
that the right of bail of the applicant granted
by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties or onerous conditions
which are unrelated to the socioeconomic
status of the applicant.
----------
(2024) 6 ILRA 83
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.06.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3738 of 2023

Subodh Kumar Nigam ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sudhakar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Anant Ram Gupta,G.A., Ram Bahadur
Gupta

Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-Section
125
(3)
-
Revision against the order directing the
payment of arrears from the month of
March 2021 to September 2022 i.e
beyond the period of one year-Coercive
measure should not be adopted where
the wife or any claimant under Section
125
Cr.P.C
has
not
been
pursuing
recovery of arrears for over a year but
that does not mean that the right to
recover arrears is lost-Other modes of
recovery can be adopted to as may be
considered by the court concerned to be
justified-Petition disposed of with the
direction arrears be deducted from the
salary of Applicant from the month of
July 2024 till the entire arrears of
maintenance is satisfied.(Para 2, 9, 10,
14) (E-15)

List of Cases referred:

1. Poongodi & anr. Vs Thangavel (2013) 10 SCC
618

2. Shahada Khatoon & ors. Vs Amjad Ali & ors.,
(1995) 5 SCC 672