Allahabad High Court
Smt. Santosh Kashyap vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 29 September, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14508 of 2020 Applicant :- Smt. Santosh Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya,Sushil Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Bareilly by which rejecting the application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for Additional Charge in S.T. No.236 of 2019 (State Vs. Kamla Devi & others), arising out of Case Crime No.530 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 306, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly.
Brief facts of the case are that applicant had solemnized the marriage of her daughter Sonam with Amit s/o Devi Ram on 11.11.2016 and in the marriage Rs.8 lacs were spent. Opposite party nos.2 to 5 along with Suneeta (nanad) were not satisfied with the dowry given by the applicant informant, hence harassed the deceased (daughter of applicant) for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. In an incident, the daughter of applicant expired on 30.06.2018 for which the FIR was lodged under Section 306 I.P.C. After investigation Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. & of D.P. Act were added along with Section 306 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate after taking into cognizance in the aforesaid sections proceeded with the case and the learned Sessions Judge has framed charge against opposite party nos.2 to 5, under Sections 306 along with Sections 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and of D.P. Act on 26.04.2019. The statement of P.W.1 being informant applicant was recorded on 17.09.2019 from which ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are made out. In her cross-examination P.W.1 has moved an application under Section 216 I.P.C. to frame additional charge under Section 304-B against opposite party nos.2 to 5, in which objections were filed by opposite party nos.2 to 5 and the trial court has proceeded illegally by rejecting the application of applicant, moved under Section 216 Cr.P.C., on 24.02.2020 without application of judicial mind.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from a perusal of statement of P.W.1 the informant applicant, it is clear that ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are made out which have not been taken into consideration and there is nothing on record to show that Section 304-B IPC is not made out against opposite party nos.2 to 5. He further submits that Section 216 Cr.P.C. clearly provides that the additional charge may be altered or added to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced and the trial can proceed along with added sections, therefore, the trial court should have added section 304-B I.P.C. and proceeded with the trial instead of rejecting the application of the informant moved under Section 216 Cr.P.C. without application of judicial mind.
Learned A.G.A. also accepts that ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are made out against opposite party nos.2 to 5, as is evident from perusal of statement of P.W.1, therefore, the trial court should have proceeded after adding Section 304-B I.P.C.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the order dated 24.02.2020 is set aside. The trial court is directed to consider the statement of P.W.1 and proceed accordingly after adding Section 304-B I.P.C.
The application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 29.9.2020 Anand Sri./-