Sukhvanti Devi And Another vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Ram Krishna Gautam, J

This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the Applicants, Shakuntla Devi and Vijay Shankar Patel, with a prayer for setting aside entire proceeding of Case No. UPSN040069602019 of 2019 (Sate vs. Vijay Shankar Patel and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0069 of 2019, under Sections-498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'), read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Aurai, District-Bhadohi, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, alongwith Charge Sheet No.90A of 2019, dated 13.10.2019, as well as cognizance taking order, dated 16.11.2019.

Learned counsel for applicants argued that in this very case crime number, , ingredients, required for constituting offence of dowry death, were lacking. A suicidal note was there and it was held to be written by the deceased herself, under her own handwriting by Forensic Science Laboratory, even then, this charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, whereas, this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44601 of 2019, Manish Kumar Patel vs. State of U.P, vide orderm, dated 23.10.2019, has held that ingredients of offence of dowry death were not there and suicidal note was there, which revealed that deceased had committed suicide because she wanted to be Hermit, but, to respect wish of her parents, she got married, though never resumed her married life. Hence, for this accusation, with full evidence of no offence, even then, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken upon it. Hence, this Application, with above prayer.

Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

From very perusal of the order, dated 23.10.2019, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44601 of 2019, Manish Kumar Patel vs. State, it is apparent that learned counsel for applicant had argued before that Court that suicidal note is a question to be seen during trial and it was there that the deceased had committed suicide upon her own volition and it was made part of Case Diary, hence, bail was claimed and the Court, while granting bail, had specifically mentioned that it was a bail order, without commenting on merit of case and observations made over suicidal note was with no reflection on the merit of the case. Meaning thereby, in that order, Coordinate Bench has not commented on merits of the case. Fact of suicidal note and suicidal death is a question of fact to be seen during trial and this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not to embark upon factual matrix because the same is under the domain of Trial court.

Death, being an unnatural death, within seven years of marriage, coupled with accusation of demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it against accused in-laws was there in the first information report. The same was also there in the statement, recorded, under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Autopsy examination report as well as inquest proceeding reveal that the death was owing to ante mortem hanging and asphyxia as a result of it, the size, situation and other internal situation of organs were indicative that though it was shown to be a suicidal death, but, it was manipulated to be a suicidal death. But, it is to be seen during trial by the Trial court. It was very well there at the time of objection in response to Bail Application and mentioned in the order passed, while deciding Bail Application. Hence, at this juncture, there is no ground for granting any indulgence for reliefs prayed for.

Accordingly, this Application, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and it stands dismissed accordingly.

However, it is directed that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

In case, if the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.