Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Suman Maurya - Appellant
Versus
State Of UP And 2 Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 7971 of 2024
Decided on : 31-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: G.A., Sher Singh, Yogendra Kumar

Allegations in dowry cases must be specific and substantiated; casual references to family members do not justify legal action.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200, 202, and 319 - Writ petition challenging orders of lower courts regarding summoning of accused in a dowry-related complaint - The court emphasized that mere casual references to family members in matrimonial disputes do not justify summoning them without clear allegations. (Paras 10, 12, 13)

(B) Misuse of Section 498A IPC - The court noted the tendency to implicate entire families in matrimonial disputes based on general allegations, which can lead to abuse of legal processes. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws for dowry harassment, but the trial court only summoned the husband, leading to a revision petition by the petitioner to summon the in-laws as well.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations against the in-laws were vague and insufficient to warrant their summoning, affirming the lower court's decision.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court erred in not summoning the in-laws based on the evidence presented and the implications of general allegations in dowry cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that allegations must be specific and substantiated; casual references do not suffice for legal action against family members.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3; learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

II. Direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur to exercise his discretionary power and reconsider the complaint and statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate order for summon the respondent nos.2 and 3 including Subhash Chandra Maurya for offence under Section 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint No.1034 of 2017 (Suman v. Subhash and others) within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

III. Issue such other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."

3. The matter in brief is that on 21.9.2017, the petitioner-Suman Maurya wife of Subashchandra Maurya lodged a Complaint No.1034 of 2017 against her husband and the opposite party nos.2, 3 for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 406 IPC & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sigramau Road District Jaunpur in the Court of C.J.M., Jaunpur alleging that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the accused Subhash Chandra Maurya on 19.05.2014, but the in-laws and the husband demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-and due to non fulfillment of the same, the petitioner was tortured mentally and physically and on 1.7.2016, she was kicked from the house after snatching her Stridhan.

4. It has further been submitted that during the proceedings, the statement of the complainant/petitioner was recorded on oath under Section 200 I.P.C. wherein the role was attributed to all the three named accused. In the statements of the witnesses recorded on oath under Section 202, Cr.P.C. the witnesses P.W.-1 Avnish Kumar and P.W.-2 Brijesh Kumar Maurya attributed general role to each of the accused.

5. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court vide order dated 15.5.2018has summoned only Subhash Chandra Maurya (husband) to face the trial under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and has dropped the name of the opposite party no.2 and 3.

6. Against the order dated 15.05.2018, the petitioner/complainant moved an Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, which was allowed by the court below vide order dated 24.11.2022.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party nos.2 and 3 filed a Criminal Revision No.5309 of 2022 (Tirathraj and another v. State of U.P. and another) before the Hon'ble High Court whereby vide order dated 16.1.2023 the revision was allowed holding that the revisionist/opposite party nos.2 and 3 could not have been summoned by the Magistrate, especially at the stage of 244 Cr.P.C.

8. The petitioner thereafter at the belated stage preferred a Criminal Revision No.l46 of 2023 challenging the summoning order dated 15.5.2018 which was rejected on 07.06.2024 affirming the impugned order dated 15.5.2018.

9. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court had not considered the statements on oath of the complainant/petitioner and the witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and had failed to summon the respondent nos.2 and 3 to face the trial. It has also been submitted that there was sufficient material to proceed against the respondent nos.2 and 3.

10. Having heard learned counsel f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document