HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 14
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. – 4906 of 2019
Applicant :- Anjum Bano
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raghunath Prasad,Prince Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Anant Kumar,J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the revisional order dated 18.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No.140 of 2019, and order dated 31.05.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.1437 of 2017, which is pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No.21, Sultanpur.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had filed a criminal complaint case no. 1437 of 2017, under Sections 498A, Section323 IPC and Section 3/Section4 Dowry Prohibition Act, against opposite parties nos. 2 to 9. Statements under Sections 200 and Section202 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial court and after hearing the petitioner and looking to the record the trial court vide order dated 21.05.2018 has summoned only husband Jaeed Ali to face trial under Sections 498A, Section323 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and the opposite parties were left and they were not summoned. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner had filed a criminal revision No.140/2019. The criminal revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur. Hence this petition.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner that before the trial court along with petitioner two other independent witnesses PW 1 Ranno Bano and PW 2 Fatma were produced who have supported the prosecution version. Inspite of that except husband other family members have not been summoned to face trial. So, the trial court as well as the first appellate court has committed a manifest error of law in not summoning the other family members to face trial.
Opposing the petition, learned A.G.A. has stated that the revisional court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case has concluded that PW 1 Ranno Bano and PW 2 Fatma are not the witnesses of any occurrence. They are simply relatives of complainant and whatever they have narrated is hearsay evidence. It is a common trend that in such disputes of husband and wife entire family is dragged and they are unnecessarily harassed.
From the perusal of the record, it is evident that in this case opposite party no.2 is father-in-law, opposite party no.3 is brother-in-law (Jeth), opposite party no.4 is sister-in-law (Jethani), opposite party no.5 is son of brother-in-law (Jeth), opposite party no.6 is another brother-in-law (Jeth), opposite party no.7 is another sister-in-law (Jethani), opposite party no.8 is brother-in-law (Devar) and opposite party no.9 is mother-in-law of the complainant who is 75 years of age. This gives an indication that entire family of the husband has been dragged in this case. Even young chaps of the family aged about 22 years have also been dragged in the case. Father-in-law and mother-in-law who are 80 years and 75 years of age who may not have played any active role in the dispute have also not been spared.
In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any force in the petition.
Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2019