Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2089
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Singh
RAM AWADH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 03 November 2005
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1105 of 2005
B.N.Singh, H.N.SINGH,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision of Section 319 Cr. P. C. can be applied to summon a person to face trial if there is sufficient material against the person, even if the person was named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or no cognizance was taken against him.
Headnote:
Summoning - Offences - Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 319 Cr. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
An application was filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, summoning the applicant and co-accused Sikandar to face trial under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and should not be summoned. The A. G. A. argued that there was sufficient material against the applicant for summoning him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material against the applicant for summoning him to face trial for the mentioned offences. The court also directed that the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant be kept in abeyance for 20 days, provided he appears before the Court and applies for bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be summoned to face trial under the mentioned offences, considering his contention of being falsely implicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was sufficient material against the applicant for summoning him to face trial for the mentioned offences. The court also provided a direction regarding the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant.
Final Decision: The court refused the prayer for quashing the order summoning the applicant and directed that the non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant be kept in abeyance for 20 days, provided he appears before the Court and applies for bail.
Heard Sri H. N. Singh and Sri B. N. Singh learned Counsels for the applicant and learned A. G. A,.
2. This application has been filed against the order dated 01-02-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Session Trial No. 184 of 2004, State v. Matuk Lal & Ors. , under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. filed by D. G. C. (Crl.) was allowed and the applicant Ram Awadh and co- accused Sikendar were summoned to face the trial under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and non- bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and co- accused.
3. The facts, in brief, of the present case are as under :
An FIR was lodged by one Kashi Ram Yadav in Case Crime No. C- 2/2004 under Section 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 24-7-2004 against the applicant and co-accused "matuk Lal, Ramkeshwar Yadav, Smt. Kewali, Anti Lal, Smt. Chukani Devi and Sikandar. After completing the investigation the I. O. submitted the charge-sheet dated 10-9-2004 in the Court of the learned Magistrate only against Matuk Lal, Ramkeshwar Yadav. Smt. Kewali, Anti Lal and Smt. Chukani alias Lalti Devi for the offences punishable under Section 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, but the charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused Sikandar was not submitted. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the I. O. the learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the abovementioned five persons, who were charge-sheeted by the I. O. and the case was committed to the Court of the Sessions. During the pendency of the trial the statement of P. W. 1 Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram were recorded in the Court of Learned Sessions Judge on 11. 1 2005 and 17-1-2005 respectively. Thereafter, on the basis of Statements of P. W. 1 Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram, the learned D. G. C. (Crl.) moved an application dated 21 1. 2005 under Section 319 Cr P. C. in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra praying therein that on the basis of the statements of the P. W. 1
Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram the applicant and the co-accused Sikander have also committed the alleged offence, so they may be summoned to face the trial, together with the other co-accused Against that application, the objection was filed by the co-accused Matuk Lal and others through his Counsel. After considering the statements of the P. W. 1 Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram and the objection filed by the accused, persons the learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra allowed the application dated 21-1-2005 filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. on 1-2-2005 and summoned the applicant and co-accused Sikandar to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and non-bailable warrants were issued against them.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was also named in the FIR alongwith other co- accused persons, but during the investigation the I. O. came to conclusion that he was falsely implicated, so no charge-sheet was submitted against him, but the charge-sheet was submitted against the five accused persons and the cognizance was taken against them and their case was committed to the Court of the Sessions, where the statements of P. W. 1 Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram were recorded. On the basis of the statements of P. W. 1 Kashi Ram and P. W. 2 Ganga Ram also no offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is made out because the applicant was having no concerned with the family of Matuk Lal, who was married with deceased Smt. Indrawati Devi, because Matuk Lal is Yadav by caste and the applicant does not belong to his caste. He is Kahar by caste. As such he is not having the blood relationship with the husband of the deceased. The applicant was falsely implicated in the
