The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 6.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Session Trial No.530 of 2010 on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the complainant Kamlesh Singh to summon the petitioners as additional accused in the aforesaid trial.
The learned trial court has accepted the application in part and summoned the petitioners to face trial under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
Marriage between the accused Gyanendra Singh with deceased Neetu Singh took place six years before the date of incident i.e. 6.11.2009. It is alleged that accused Gyanendra Singh shot dead Neetu Singh. From the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, it is evident that the petitioners were not present at the time of incident. This is also in evidence that the petitioners have separate living from accused Gyanendra Singh. The only allegation against the petitioners was that they and accused Gyanendra Singh used to demand Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry and they asked the deceased to bring the money from her parents and give it to Gyanendra Singh.
Police after investigating the offence, did not find sufficient evidence against the accused for commission of the offence and, therefore, charge sheet was filed only against accused Gyanendra Singh. He is in jail and facing trial in the aforesaid case.
Learned trial court on the basis of the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, has held that there is evidence for dowry demand by the petitioners as well.
I have perused the statements of the two witnesses.
P.W.-1 in his statement has said that the deceased Neetu Singh told the complainant that Gyanendra Singh once put the country-made pistol on her head and asked that she should bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents. The only allegation against the petitioners, is that petitioners told the deceased that she should bring Rs.50,000/- to be given to Gyanendra Singh. The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 so far the commission of the offence by the accused under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, does not appear to be credible and cogent.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 has held that there is tendency to implicate all family members in the case of dowry demand.
P.W.1 and P.W.-2 have specifically said that at the time of incident, only Gyanendra Singh was present at the place of incident.
Considering these aspects of the matter, there is no sufficient credible and cogent evidence available before the trial court to summon the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 6.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Session Trial No.530 of 2010, is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial against accused Gyanendra Singh.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Rao/-