Allahabad High Court
Taule Ram And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 11 August, 2014
Author: Ranjana Pandya
Bench: Ranjana Pandya
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2059 of 2014 Revisionist :- Taule Ram And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Arpit Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.05.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Pilibhit.
Brief facts are that the opposite party no. 2 was married with Chatanya Swaroop on 02.03.2008. Her father gave her certain gifts and dowry on her marriage. She has two daughters namely Km. Kajal and Km. Payal and her husband has since died. She many times demanded her 'Stridhan' from the accused Taularam, Munni Devi, Yogendra Pal, Munni Devi, Rinku and Rambeti but they refused to return back her 'Stridhan'. Hence the complaint has presented.
The complainant has examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses Amar Singh and Nattho Devi were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and some documentary evidences were also filed in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
On perusal of the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the documents on record, learned Magistrate has passed impugned order dated 26.05.2014, summoning the revisionists under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 6 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist have come up in this revision.
The initial limb of arguments advanced in this case is that according to the case of the complainant herself, her matter is hopelessly time barred but learned lower court did not look into this aspect of the matter. Perusal of the complaint shows that the 'Stridhan' of the complainant was given to the revisionists some times in March, 2008, although the specific date has not been mentioned. The learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the ingredients of Section 406 I.P.C. have not been set forth as specific date of entrustment and the specific date of demand have also not been mentioned, hence, the order is bad in the eye of law. Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon 2008 Cr.L.J. 2321 (Nagendra Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.) in which it has been held that there should be specific allegations but vague allegations should not be given weightage too.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further placed reliance on 2009 (4) JCC 3021 (Neelu Chopra and Anr. Vs. Bharti) in which it has been held as follows:-
"5. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be the end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants."
Learned Magistrate did not take any consideration of limitation and the aforesaid proposition of law, hence I think the order under revision needs be quashed.
Accordingly the revision is allowed.
The order dated 26.05.2014 is quashed. Learned Magistrate shall pass fresh order after giving opportunity to the revisionists of hearing in the light of the observation made in this order.
Order Date :- 11.8.2014 sailesh