Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rahul Chaturvedi, J.
Mukesh Bansal and Ors. – Revisionists
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Revision No.1126 of 2022 with
Criminal Revision No.1187 of 2022 with
Criminal Revision No.1122 of 2022
Decided on 13.6.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
In Criminal Revision No.1126/2022
For the Revisionists:Rajeev Nayan Singh, Ritukar Gupta, Vinod Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.
In Criminal Revision No.1187/2022
For the Revisionists:Rajeev Nayan Singh, Ritukar Gupta, Sr. Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.
Criminal Revision No.1122/2022
For the Revisionists:Ritukar Gupta,Rajeev Nayan Singh,Vinod Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: Raj Kumar Kesari, G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
Discharge of accused – At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials cannot be gone into – Court is not required to hold a mini-trial at state of discharge.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 307 and 120-B – Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 – Sections ¾ – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Dowry offence – Discharge of accused – Story narrated in FIR is not only abhorring, full of dirt, filth and venomous accusations where informant fiercely abused her own husband and in-laws by using all ways and means in tone, tenor and texture in extreme manner – In our traditional Indian family, where they are residing in a joint family with unmarried son, it is highly improbable and difficult to digest allegations of demanding sexual favours from her daughter-in-law by father-in-law or brother-in-law – Stray and tangent allegations of demanding dowry by father-in-law and mother-in-law would not bring them within four corners of Section 498-A IPC – Two young couples agree to have sexual and romantic relationship – Traditional fragrance of our age-old institution of marriage would completely evaporated over period of time if such gross and unmindful misuse of Section 498-A IPC would keep on pasted rampantly – No arrest or police action to nab named accused persons shall be made after lodging of FIR or complaints without concluding “Cooling-Period” which is two months from lodging of FIR or complaint – During this “Cooling-Period”, matter would be immediately referred to Family Welfare Committee in each district – Accused persons discharged from allegations. (Paras 8, 28, 33, 34, 35 and 38)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Discharge of accused – Charge-sheet constitute prima facie evidence constituting offence for proceedings and it is only trial Judge after assessing material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to contesting parties, framed charges against accused persons – Prior to this, avenue has been created by legislation giving a weapon of discharge in hands of accused so as to rely upon material collected by Police during investigation and citing loopholes and pitfalls in prosecution story and material collected by Investigating Officer of case during investigation, and after assessing those materials collected during investigation and critically examined them, if court finds that there is no sufficient or confidence generating material collected in the investigation, trial court well within its power to discharge accused and record reasons for doing so – Only prima facie case is to be seen and whether case is beyond reasonable doubt or not, cannot be assessed at this stage – At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials cannot be gone into – Court is not required to hold a mini-trial at state of discharge. (Paras 17, 18, 19 and 22)
Result: Criminal Revision Petitions Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

Rahul Chaturvedi, J.—Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Nayan Singh and Sri Ritukar Gupta learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in all the above captioned revisions and as such, all the matters has ripe for final submissions to be adjudicated on merits.

3. Coincidentally, all the aforesaid three revisionists, are assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 03.03.2022 through their respective revisions mentioned above whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Hapur, by three different orders of the same date i.e 03.03.2022, have rejected all the discharge applications of the revisionists under section 227 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 19 of 2020 (State v. Manju Bansal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 567 of 2018, under sections 498-A, 504, 506, 307 and 120-B IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pilakhuwa, District Hapur.

Since, order dated 03.03.2022 has been passed on three different applications in the same Sessions Trial, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, all the aforesaid three revisions are clubbed together and decided by a common judgement by this Court.

Facts of the Case & Submissions by the Counsel for the Revisionists:—

4. As per prevailing practice nowadays in the society mostly in the cases of matrimonial discord, misunderstanding and incompatibility between the married couples, results into ever abhorring FIR. Here too, it seems to be a repetition of the same practice. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by none other than the wife Ms. Shivangi Bansal herself against her husband as well as her in-laws. From the perusal of the FIR, it is borne out that for the incident of 04.10.2018, the present FIR came into existence on 22.10.2018 lodged at Police Station-Pilkhua, District-Hapur(native place of Ms. Shivani Bansal) against five named accused including husband and his relatives. In addition to above named accused persons, two more namely Chirag Bansal brother-in-law(devar) and Smt. Shipra Jain, married sister-in-law(nanad) were also roped in these offences. From the text of the FIR, following salient factual features of the case are apparent:—

5. The written complaint signed by the informant Ms. Shivangi Bansal was sent to the office of the Prime Minister, Government of India, Chief Minister, State of U.P., Police Commissioner, New Delhi, D.G.P. Lucknow, Superintendent of Police, Hapur and Circle Officer, Police Station-Pilkhua, District-Hapur with the allegations that opposite party no.2 Ms. Shivangi Bansal was married with Sahib Bansal on 05.12.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals. It seems that there was a deep rooted misunderstanding, and thorough incompatibility and discord between husband and wife, in fact, both of them were fierce-foe of each other.

6. It is alleged that in the marriage, her parents have spent about Rs.2 crores in the shape of cash, jwellery, clothing, utensils, furniture and other gifts worth Rs.50 lacs. But, all the above named five persons were not happy by the aforesaid dowry and were demanding Rs.20 lacs more as an additional dowry which later on swelled to the figure of Rs.50 lacs. It is alleged that (a) the informant’s father-in-law Mukesh Bansal wanted to have sexual favours from opposite party no.2 and not only this, her devar Chirag Bansal also have tried to ravish her physically. (b) The husband-Sahib Bansal used to lock her in the bathroom after taking away her mobile phone.(c) When the informant got pregnant, then they asked some astronomer to predict the sex of ‘still born’ baby. Then, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law pressurized her to get aborted. On making refusal, all the family members became physical with her. (d) During the stage of pregnancy, her husband tried to establish sexual relationship per-force.