HARI GOVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Senior Advocate Sri Dileep Kumar assisted by Sri Deepak Kumar learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

(2.) The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Varanasi in Criminal Case No.2933/2009 ( State vs. Bhola Singh and others ) arising out of Case Crime No.10/06, under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 / 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shirpur, District Varanasi by which the revisionists' application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking for discharge has been rejected and they have been directed to appear personally before the court to frame charge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that revisionist no.1 Hari Govind Singh and his wife Abha Singh (revisionist no.2) are permanently residing at Mumbai at the official residence allotted by the Department of Income Tax, Government of India for discharging his duty on different post being Class-I Officer of Indian Revenue Services. Hari Govind Singh is presently posted as Chief Commissioner Income Tax at Sindhia House Mumbai. Revisionist no.3 Smt. Manju Singh is also a house wife, her husband is discharging his duty in the Film Division of Government of Uttar Pradesh. She has two kids. The elder daughter Km. Neha aged about 26 years is a cronic patient of kidney disorder. Her both kidnies collapsed as such her mother Manju Singh had donated her one kidney due to which she is survived being handicap. He has submitted that apparent on the face of allegations no one can believe the demand of dowry by the revisionists. F.I.R. was lodged against the revisionists as well as three charge sheeted persons. After investigation revisionists were not charge sheeted. On submission of the charge sheet against the co-accused persons statement of the informant was recorded before the trial court and on the basis of her statement and on application moved by her under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned. He submits that statement recorded in reference to charge sheeted accused cannot be looked into for framing charge against revisionists, the newly added accused. He further submitted that according to prosecution Rs.5 lakhs were demanded for construction of Vidya Public School situated in Varanasi which does not come within the purview of demand of dowry. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another , 2010 Law Suit (Supreme Court) 543 complaint was filed under Section, 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B I.P.C . against appellant no.1 sister-in-law, appellant no.2 brother-in-law and others. Appellant no.1 was a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and was living with her husband for more than seven years. Appellant no.2 was permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint holding that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be an abuse of process of law. In Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of U.P. and another , 2012 Law Suit (Supreme Court) 716, appellant no.1 was sister-in-law and appellant no.2 brother-in-law of the complainant. F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2 in appeal under Sections 498-A , 323 , 504 , 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed and set aside the criminal proceeding against the appellants.