Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1206 of 2019 Revisionist :- Yogendra Singh Sisodia And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Vishvakarma,Varun Kumar Vishwakarma
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Arun Kumar Vishvakarma, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by revisionists against judgment and order dated 7.2.2019 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(DAA)Agra in Criminal Revision No. 213 of 2016 by which the revision filed by opposite party No.2 was allowed and the order dated 16.4.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Agra in Complaint Case No. 2244 of 2015(Dinesh Kumar vs. Yogendra Singh Sisodia and others) was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Magistrate concerned for taking fresh decision in the light of observations made in the revision.
Brief facts of the case are that marriage of revisionist no.3 Smt. Sweta was solemnized on 7.12.2008 with son of opposite party no.2 namely Amit. The revisionist nos. 1 and 2 who are parents of revisionist no.3 had given household articles to her daughter as a gift. The opposite party No.2 and other family members of opposite party no.2 has demanded dowry from the revisionists and since the illegal demand of opposite party No.2 could not be fulfilled by the revisionists they ousted revisionist no.3 from the house. The revisionists have made all efforts for settlement but opposite party no.2 was not ready for settlement unless the demand of dowry is fulfilled by revisionists. The revisionist no.3 ultimately filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No. 513 of 2014(Smt. Sweta vs. Amit Sikarwar and others) under section 498-A, 323, 506, 406 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry prohibition Act and is pending before Additional Civil Judge(Jr. Div.) Firozabad. Another complaint was filed under Domestic Violence Act by revisionist no.3 which was registered as Complaint Case No. 58 of 2014 which is also pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and complaint case no.1298 of 2014 was filed by revisionist under section 406 IPC and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Revisionist no.3 has also filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance which is also pending apart from aforesaid cases.
Since the revisionist no.3 has filed complaint against opposite party no.2 and his son for demand of dowry as well as harassment and for maintenance, opposite party no.2 altogether on incorrect facts, has filed a complaint against revisionists under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2244 of 2015. It is alleged in the complaint by opposite party No.2 that he never demanded any dowry from revisionists and they forcibly gave household articles at the time of marriage. The statement of opposite party no. 2 was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that he has not received any dowry at the time of marriage of his son. The opposite party no. 2 has not produced any witness in support of his allegations under section 202 Cr.P.C.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7 Agra after considering the averment of complaint filed by opposite party no.2 as well as statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. has found that since it was admitted by the complainant himself that he has not received any dowry from the revisionists and no witness was produced under section 202 Cr.P.C. and as such has failed to prove contents of the complaint. Finding has also been recorded by the learned Magistrate that it appears that as a counter-blast and only to create pressure upon revisionists, the complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 on wrong facts and the complaint filed by opposite party no.2 was rejected vide order dated 16.4.2016 under section 203 Cr.P.C.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2016, opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 213 of 2016 and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(DAA) Agra has allowed the criminal revision vide order dated 7.2.2019, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate concerned to decide afresh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for revisionists that lower revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the criminal revision preferred by opposite party no.2 ignoring the fact that it was admitted by opposite party no.2 himself in his statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. that he has not received any dowry. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence and materials adduced by the complainant, has recorded the finding that the complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 only to create pressure upon the revisionists and it is mere a counter-blast. The revisional Court has also failed to consider that no witness was produced by the complainant/opposite party no.2 under section 202 Cr.P.C. to prove the allegations levelled in the complaint. The revisional Court has also committed illegality in considering the evidence adduced in some other criminal cases which are not admissible in the present case.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have stated that the revisional Court has rightly passed the impugned order after considering the entire evidence and materials which are available on record.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and from the perusal of impugned order dated 7.2.2019, it appears that the lower revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the criminal revision preferred bv opposite party no.2. The admission of opposite party no.2 that he has not received any dowry was ignored and has also committed illegality in accepting the evidence adduced in some other cases, which are not admissible in the present case. The revisional court has also committed error in allowing the criminal revision without reversing the finding recorded by learned Magistrate.
In view of above, the present criminal revision is allowed and judgment and order dated 7.2.2019 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(DAA)Agra in Criminal Revision No. 213 of 2016 under section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra is hereby set aside and the order dated 16.4.2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, Agra is affirmed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 P.P.