IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No.695 of 2024

Mohan Lal ......Revisionist

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Harshpal Sekhon along with Mr. Basant Singh, learned counsels for

the Revisionist.

Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder, for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the Revisionist

Mohan Lal under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Court of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2024 (State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Lal & Others), whereby the discharge application filed by the Revisionist was rejected and charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B

IPC were framed against him.

2. The genesis of the matter lies in FIR No. 14 of 2024, registered

on 18.01.2024 at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 302 and 304-B IPC, on the allegation that the deceased Prabha, wife of the Revisionist, was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry and was ultimately killed by the Revisionist and

his family members.

3. The investigation culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet

against the Revisionist and his family members under Sections 498-A

and 304-B IPC.Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned trial court rejected the application for discharge and proceeded to frame charges against the Revisionist by the impugned order.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the Revisionist has preferred the present criminal revision seeking the setting aside of the order dated

17.09.2024 and his discharge from the case.

5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 is unsustainable in law as the learned trial court has rejected the discharge application and framed charges in a mechanical manner, without due application of judicial mind.

6. It is urged that the FIR allegations regarding dowry demand and cruelty are omnibus, general, and motivated, levelled only to implicate the Revisionist and his family members falsely. The deceased, it is pointed out, had been residing at her parental home for about four months prior to the incident, and had returned to the matrimonial house only on 15.01.2024.

7. The defence seeks to rely upon an ultrasound report dated

16.01.2024 to contend that the deceased was pregnant with a child of another person, and upon learning of this, her family had sent her back to the house of the Revisionist. It is argued that the deceased, overwhelmed by the stigma, committed suicide, which has been wrongly projected as a case of dowry death.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant, Smt.

Mohan Dei (mother of the deceased), initially claimed in the FIR that she had witnessed the incident of strangulation and hanging by the Revisionist and his family members. However, in her subsequent statement under Section 161 CrPC, she admitted that she was not an eyewitness, thereby rendering the core allegation of murder or dowry death wholly unreliable.

9. It is also contended that the post-mortem report does not disclose any injury marks or indications of cruelty soon before the death, and the absence of such findings rules out the allegation of homicidal death for dowry.

10. Learned counsel emphasises that one of the persons named in the FIR, namely Suraj, was exonerated during investigation and not charge- sheeted, although the role attributed to him was similar to that of the Revisionist. This selective implication, according to the Revisionist, indicates falsity of the prosecution case.

11. It is further argued that the order of the trial court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, wherein it has been held that the power to discharge must be exercised where the material does not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding.

12. On these premises, it is contended tha