KANHAYA LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2016-6-109
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on June 06,2016

Kanhaya Lal Gupta Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Basti in Session Trial No.46/15 (State Vs. Shivaji & others), under Section 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby the court below has rejected the application filed against the opposite party no.2- Jagdish Prasad s/o Sri Ram Adhar for summoning him under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), which is under challenge in this revision.
(2.) Facts, in brief, are that revisionist-applicant's daughter Mamta was married on 18.5.2013 with accused Shivaji Agrahari. Opposite party no.2-Jagdish Prasad is real elder brother of the deceased father of Shivaji. He along with other co-accused demanded the additional dowry. Opposite party no.2- Jagdish Prasad was the Mediator of the alleged marriage. Rs.3 lac & fifty thousand along with a motorcycle was given in the marriage as a dowry, but there was an additional demand of Rs.5 lacs as dowry. Due to this demand of dowry, his daughter Mamta was physically and mentally tortured. On 20.9.2013 Mamta was burnt by pouring kerosene oil by all these accused persons.
(3.) An FIR was registered against all the accused persons, namely, Shivaji Agrahari, Om Prakash, Shanti Devi and Jagdish Prasad, but in connivance with the Investigating Officer the charge sheet has not been filed against accused-Jagdish Prasad. The charge sheet was only filed against accused Shivaji, Om Prakash and Shanti Devi. The prosecution has produced Kanhayia Lal and Pawan Kumar Agrahari as witnesses before the court below who had stated in their statement about the involvement of Jagdish Prasad for the demand of dowry. The applicant-revisionist prayed for summoning the accused- Jagdish Prasad along with the other co-accused, against which an objection was filed stating therein that the application for summoning the accused had only been filed for causing delay and harassment of the other accused in the trial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.