Allahabad High Court
Smt. Jannatun Begum vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 January, 2020
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 55 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 47770 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Jannatun Begum Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the request to quash the orders dated 06.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 71 of 2014 (State Vs. Nazim) arising out of Case Crime No. 180 of 2013, Under section 306 I.P.C., P.S. Bindki, District Fatehpur.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that an F.I.R. was lodged from the side of the applicant under sections 498A, 304B IPC and section Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated into the offence and after completing investigation charge-sheet was submitted for the offence under section 306 IPC. On the basis of charge framed by the Court under section 306 IPC, the trial proceeded against the opposite party no. 2 and P.W.-1 Smt. Jannatun Begum and P.W.-2 Nausin were examined. After their examination, an application was given by the applicant. On the basis of their evidence an offence is made out against the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under section 498A and 304B IPC and section Dowry Prohibition Act and therefore, it was requested to the learned trial court to amend the said charge which was earlier framed for the offence under section 306 IPC. The learned trial court by the impugned order rejected the application, giving a finding that there was no such need and no such offence is made out.
The submission of the learned counsel is that from the perusal of the statement of the witnesses, clearly an offence is made out and the charge should have been amended by the learned trial court. Not amending the charge amounting to misuse of the process of the court and therefore, this application has been given seeking the quashing of the impugned order.
Perused the impugned order and papers attached with this application.
The learned trial court has entered into the detailed discussions of the evidence given from the side of the prosecution and after detailed analysis it came to the conclusion that the charge is not required to be amended.
The settled principle, so far as the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned is that, the Court is not expected to enter into the intricacies of the evidence as this Court does not sit in the capacity of the Appellate Court.
As such, I do not find any force in the application and the same is liable to be dismissed.
The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that at any point of time, if, the learned trial court find that the charge is required to be amended as requested by the applicant, it could exercise his inherent power under law and amend the charge accordingly.
Order Date :- 3.1.2020 Bhanu