SANDHYA VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 1.2.2014 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly in S.T. 965 of 2013 (State v. Vishwas Pratap Singh and others) under section 504 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T. Act whereby the application seeking discharge was allowed and the alleged accused opposite party No. 2 Rajiv Pratap Singh was discharged by the Court. Heard Shri Rupesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Hari Keshav Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. Learned A.G.A. has also been heard.

(2.) The contention of the Counsel for the revisionist is that there was sufficient material available on record to indicate that opposite party No. 2 had humiliated the revisionist on the ground of her being of Scheduled Caste community and that she was also abused by him and therefore, the Court should have proceeded to frame the charge against him under section 504 I.P.C. and also under section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. Act. The contention is that the order of discharge is therefore bad in the eyes of law.

(3.) In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that even if the alleged assertion of prosecution is taken to be true for the sake of argument at this stage then too there is sufficient material to indicate that the alleged act of humiliation was never done in public view as admittedly to the prosecution the talks to opposite party No. 2 are said to have taken place on a telephone. It has also been submitted that even the alleged abuses have not been specified. The contention is that the revisionist was, as per her own admission, carrying on a love affair with one Vishwas Pratap Singh who is said to be the real brother of opposite party No. 2. The submission is that the fact that she was having physical carnal relationship with Vishwas Pratap Singh is also an admitted fact to the prosecution. The contention is that as the love affair could not materialise or fructify into marriage, therefore, out of frustration and vengeance she has made a blanket allegation against opposite party No. 2 which does not contain any truth at all. It has also been submitted that opposite party No. 2 is a man of modern outlook and does not believe in caste system and has no objection at all if his brother contracts marriage with the revisionist. But if at the stage of framing of the charge only the allegations made by the prosecution are taken into account then also they do not constitute any offence and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality at all.