Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2331 of 2018 Revisionist :- Ramesh Chandra Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kailash Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Sri M.N. Shukla, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
Challenge in this criminal revision is to the impugned order dated 17.3.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 20, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 550 of 2014, Manju Gupta versus Ramesh Gupta and others and the judgment and order dated 6.6.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.1, Azamgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2015, Ramesh Chandra Gupta and others versus State of U.P. and another.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri M.N. Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Perused the record.
So far as the initial order passed by the Magistrate is concerned, learned counsel for the revisionists has not been able to point out any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order passed by the Magistrate dated 17.3.2015. There is no element of perversity reflected in the same and this Court does not see any abuse of the Court's process that could have been occasioned by it. There is hardly anything to be interfered with in the order. So far as the order passed by the lower appellate court is concerned, there appears to be something quite untenable in the same. According to the counsel, the undertaking that was given on behalf of the revisionists that they have no objection to the use of kitchen and latrine etc. by the opposite party no.2, the kitchen and latrine were already in existence and opposite party no.2 could very well use the same but the lower appellate court passed the order giving directions that a separate latrine and bathroom should be constructed for opposite party no.2. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the construction of the house is such that this direction is very difficult to comply with. There are five brothers and the house in question is owned and shared by them jointly and it is a joint property. Such kind of direction is likely to cause enormous complications. According to the counsel, a very distorted meaning of the undertaking has been attributed by the lower appellate court and the direction that has been given is quite untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, learned counsel for the revisionists has also tried to point out that the opposite party no.2 is actually facing trial of killing her own husband.
Be that as it may, this Court is not entering into truthfulness or otherwise of the charge whether the opposite party no.2 is responsible for causing murder of her husband or not. But in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction as has been given by the lower appellate Court appears to be incongruous. So far as the existing kitchen and latrine etc. is concerned, the same can be used by opposite party no.2 and the revisionists have no objection to the same also. In such circumstances, the lower appellate court's order stands modified to the extent that so far as the direction to construct new latrine and bathroom afresh is concerned, the same direction would stand set aside. The revision to that extent stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 CPP/-