Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8421 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and also perused the record. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following main relief(s):- "i. To issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-06-2022 passed by the Learned Special CJM Custom, Lucknow and order dated 10-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 17 contained as Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this petition. ii. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to summon the O.P. No. 2 for facing the trial in case No. 67858/2020 filed by the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow." Brief facts of the case in hand are to the effect that an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 11 of 2014 was lodged by the opposite party No. 2/Vijay Laxmi, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, on 03.01.2014 at P.S.- Kotwalinagar, District-Barabanki making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. After investigation, the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") submitted the charge sheet. In the trial, charges were framed against Rohit Rastogi s/o petitioner/Ram Naresh, Ram Naresh Rastogi, Shashi Bala Rastogi w/o petitioner and Smt. Laxmi Rastogi (Mamia Sas) by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 2014 (State vs. Rohit Rastogi and 3 others). It would be apt to indicate here that the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki on 02.06.2016 to the court of Session. It would also be relevant to indicate here that during pendency of trial, the accused/Rohit Rastogi s/o petitioner/Ram Naresh expired on 01.01.2017 and therefore, the trial was abated in relation to accused/Rohit Rastogi on

27.06.2017. The trial court namely Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 36, Barabanki, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted all the accused vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2018. After the aforesaid, the petitioner filed the Complaint Case under Section 182, 192, 193 IPC on 09.11.2020, registered as Case No. 67858/2020 (Ram Naresh Rastogi vs. Vijay Laxmi). Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2, being aggrieved by the order dated

10.12.2018, filed the Criminal Appeal Defective U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 4 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2022. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner kept mum for more than two years from the judgment of acquittal dated 10.12.2018 and with due consultation filed the complaint case on 09.11.2020, indicated above. It would be apt to indicate here that according to paragraph 3 of the complaint case, on account of false allegations levelled in the dowry case i.e. Case No. 11 of 2014, the accused-Rohit Rastogi expired on 01.01.2017. However, his death summary annexed at page No. 83 of the paper book of Medanta Hospital speaks otherwise. As per death summary, accused-Rohit Rastogi was brought to the hospital as a patient/case of Diabetes Mellitus & CLD and he was admitted in the hospital in emergency and kept in ICU and on account of his condition, ventilator and inotropic support were given. The death summary reads as under:- "Death Summary : 21/01/2017 : Decompensated CLD (Child C, MELD 36) Portal Hypertension, AKI, HE, Coagulopathy, Jaundice Sepsis with Septic Shock with MODS Type II Diabetes Mellitus : Sepsis with Septic Shock with MODS : Mr. Rohit Kumar, 30 years old male a known case of Diabetes Mellitus & CLD, patient presented in emergency department with recent history of vomiting with weakness and decreased appetite. Patient came in emergency in unconscious state, pulse-feeble, BP not recordable. ECG showed ventricular tachycardia. Patient was given DC shock and reverted to normal sinus rhythm and patient was intubated and put on inotropic support and ventilatory support and admitted in ICU for further evaluation and management. : Patient was admitted in ICU and started on IV Fluids, IV Antibiotics, ventilatory support, Inotropic support. Consultations were taken from Cardiology, Nephrology, Critical Care, Endocrinology and management started. Condition of the patient was sick and relatives were explained the critical condition. Patient was having Hypotension, AKI with Severe Metabolic Acidosis and patient underwent haemodialysis. Neurology consultation was taken for persistent encephalopathy and NCCT Brain was s/o no significant interval change on comparison with previous MRI done on 11.09.2016 is noted. No interval development of acute infarct / intra-parenchymal or subarachnoid hemorrhage is seen. EEG showed moderate degree of diffuse nonspecific neurophysiological dysfunction. A metabolic cause can be ruled out. No epileptiform discharges or electrographic seizures were seen. His acidosis was worsening and was put on CRRT support. Blood transfusion was also done during hospital stay. Dermatology consultation was taken for pyoderma gangrenosum and advised to continue antibiotics. His condition remain critical and on 01.01.2017 at 03:55AM patient had bradycardia followed by asystole for which CPR was started according to ACLS protocol but inspite of all best efforts patient could not be revived and was declared dead on 01.01.2017 at 04:25AM." Thus, the allegations levelled in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid complaint are completely bogus rather false. The Magistrate namely Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow after recording the statement of petitioner in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statement(s) of Laxmi and Shashi Bala in terms of Sections 202 Cr.P.C. summoned the police report in terms of Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record including the police report rejected the complaint case vide order dated 22.06.2022, under challenge. The operative portion of the order dated 22.06.2022 reads as under:- "

ससननतथनपतनवललकनपररशललनककयन।पररवनदपतककसमथरनममकदयकगयकपररवनदलककबयनन

अनतगरतधनरन200

दद०प०सद०तथनलकमलवशशलबनलनककधनरन202

दद०प०सद०ककअनतगरत

कदयकगयकबयननएवदधनरन202 (2)

दणडपककयनसदकहतनककअधलनसमबननधतथननकसकपनपअनवकषण

आखयनएवदपतनवललकनसमयकअवललकनककयन।

अवललकनसककवकदतहलतनहहककआवकदककन

कथनककअकभयसकनदनरनएकझझदठलकशकनयतआवकदकएवदउसककपररवनरवनललकककवरदथननन

एवदकलतवनलल

-

बनरनबदककममअनतगरतधनरन

-498

ए , 323, 313, 504, 506

आई०पल०सल०एवद

डल०पल०एकटममदररकरनयलगयलऔरनयनयनलयनकपरलकणलपरननतउपरलकअकभयलगकलझझदठन

पनयनऔरआवकदकसकहतसभलललगलकलकदननदक

10.12.2018

कलनयनयनलयदनरनदलषमसककर

कदयनगयन।ददरननकवचनरणआवकदकककपसतरलकहतरसतलगलकककदननदक

- 01.01.2017

कलवनकदनल

मसकदमनदनरनझझदठनआरलपलगनयकरननककककनरणसदममसकउसककममतयसहलगयल।नयनयनलयदनरन

आहहतककगयलधनरन

202 (2)

दणडपककयनसदकहतनककआखयननसनरआवकदकककपसतदनरन

अतयधधकशरनबकनसकवनककयनरनतनथनतथनअतयधधकशरनबपलनककककनरणवललवरकक

बलमनरलसकगधसतहलगयकथकऔरइसलबलमनरलकककनरणमकदननतनअसपतनलगसडगनदवममइलनरकक

ददरननउनककममतयसहलगयलथल।अनवकषणआखयनककअवललकनसकसपषहहककआवकदकककपसत

रलकहत कसमनर कक ममतयस पमनणपत पर ममतयस कन कनरण

SEPTI SHOCK WITH

MULTIORGAN FAILURE CHRONIC LIVER DESEASE WITH DECOMPENSATION

अदककतककयनगयनहहनककककसलसदममकककनरणममतयसहलनन

।वनकदनल

मसकदमनदनरनधलखनयनगयनउपरलकमसकदमननयनयनलयममकनसतनररतहलगयनथन, धरसकक

रननकनरलवनकदनलमसकदमनकलदकरसकहलपननककककनरणनयनयनलयममवहअपललनहहकरसककऔर

उसककदनरनकलईकवदकषपझणरभनवननसकअकभयलगपदरलकमतनहहकरनयनगयनथन।

अकभयलगपदरलकमत

करनयकरननककककरलब

वषरबनदआवकदकककपसतरलकहतकसमनरककममतयसमकदननतनअसपतनलमम

बलमनरलकककनरणहहईहहनककअकभयलगपदरलकमतकरनयकरननककककनरणसदममसक

।आवकदकदनरन

अपनकसनकयममअपनकपसतकनकववनहकवपकलकवरयलकमलसकहलननसवलकनरककयनगयनहहतथन

कवपकलकवरयलकमलदनरनथनननएवदकलतवनलल-

बनरनबदककममअनतगरतधनरन-498 ए, 323, 313, 504, 506

आई०पल०सल०एवद3/4

डल०पल०एकटकनमसकदमनदररकरनयनरनननभलसवलकनर

ककयनगयनहह।पसतसतसनकयलककमनधयमसककवपकलदनरनककसलअपरनधकनककयनरनननपथम

दषयनपतलतनहहहलतनहहतथनकवपकलकवरयलकमलकलतलबककयकरननककनआधनरपयनरपनहहहह।

अततआवकदकककदनरनपसतसतपररवनदअनतगरतधनरन-203

सल०आर०पल०सल०खनरररककयकरननक

यलगयहह। आदकश

आवकदकदनरनपसतसतपररवनदअनतगरतधनरन-203

सल०आर०पल०सल०खनरररककयनरनतनहह।

पतनवललकनयनमननसनरदनधखलदफतरहल।" Being aggrieved by the the order dated 22.06.2022, the petitioner filed the Criminal Revision No. 268 of 2024 (Ram Naresh vs. State of U.P. and another). The revisional court vide order dated 10.09.2024 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of Magistrate dated 22.06.2022. The relevant portion of the order dated 10.09.2024 reads as under:- "13.

उपरलककवधधकदषनदतलककआललकममउपलबधसनकयककदकषगतयहदकशरतहहककपररवनदल

दनरनपररवनदपतममसवलकनरककयनगयनहहकककवपकलसद०-2

उसककपसतकककवधधसदगतवयनहतन

पतनलहह।पररवनदलककपसतऔरबहहककमधयवहवनकहकसमबनधलममकववनदकककनरणबहहकवपकलसद०-2

दनरनरनपदबनरनबदककममदहकरउतपलडनसमबनधलअकभयलगअनयकथननकककसनथपदरलकमत

करनयनगयनथन।यदकपकनगरननलकतनर/

पररवनदलउसममदलषमसकहहआककनतसउसकनआरलपलपसत

ददरननकवचनरणममतयसहलरननककककनरणउसककपकतकवचनरणममउपशकमतहलगयन।यहसवलकमतहह

कककवपकलसद०-2

दनरनदररकरनयकगयकअकभयलगऔरकवचनरणममलगभगतलनसनलककउपरननत

पररवनदलककपसतककममतयसहहईहह।पररवनदलककसवलकनरलककककअनसनरहलउसककपसतककममतयस

मकदननतनअसपतनलगसडगनगवममइलनरककददरननहहई।पररवनदलकककथननकककअनसनरकवपकलसद०-2

दनरनशपथपरझझठबललनककनकनयरकवचनरणककददरननककयनगयन।कवचनरणरनपदबनरनबदककमम

ककयनगयन।पररवनदलककपसतककममतयसकनकनरणSEPTI SHOCK WITH MULTIORGAN FAILURE CHRONIC LIVER DESEASE WITH DECOMPENSATION अदककत

ककयनगयनहह।सपषकरननहहककसकपटलशशककनतनतपयरसदमननहहहलतनबनलककचककतसलयभनषन

ममइसकनअथरकभनहलतनहह।इसतरहउकसमवकतपररनसथकतयनगयहसपषकरतलहहककपररवनदलकक

पसतककममतयसककधलएकवपकलसद०-2

कलधरममकदनरठहरनननअतयनतहलदझरसथकनरणहलगन।इस

पकनरकवदननअवरनयनयनलयदनरनउपलबधसनकयककआललकममपररवनदकथननकककदकषगत

उसकधनरन-203

सल०आर०पल०सल०ककतहतकनरसतकरनककनकनषकषरकवधधसदगतहह।कवदननअवर

नयनयनलयदनरनअनयथनआधनरलपरभलसमवकतपररनसथकतयलककआललकममपररवनदकलकनरसत

करनककनकनषकषरदकनकममइसकनगरननलनयनयनलयककदकषममकलईभझलयनतसकटकनररतनहहककगयल हह।

14.

उकपकरणककपररनसथकतयलमममनननलयउचचनयनयनलयइलनहनबनदककभलकवधधकदषनदत

शलपनलबननमउ०प०रनजय2009(67)

ए०सल०सल०425

एवदचरनधसदहबननमशलमतलशनननत

दकवल2004 सल.आर.एल.रक. 2408

कनउलकखसमलचलनहहधरसममसमवकतरपसकयहभनववयक

ककयनगयनहहककपररवनदलकनपररवनदममककयनगयनकथनउसककसनकयअनतगरतधनरन200 एवद

दद०प०सद०सकसमभनकवतऔरकवशवसनलयपतलतनहहहलतनहहतथनकवपकलपरदवनबबनननक

यनउसकककतकनररतकरनकउदकशयसकऔरनरककरपममकवधधकपककयनकनदसरपयलगककयनरननन

दकशरतहलतनहहपररणनमसवरपउससनकयकककवशलकषणसकनयनयनलयइसकनषकषरपरपहहदचतनहलकक

कवपकलगणकककवरदकनयरवनहलकरनककनपयनरपआधनरनहलहहतलऐसकपररवनदकलकनरसतककयन

रनननचनकहए।कवदननअवरनयनयनलयदनरनपतनवललपरउपलबधसनकयककआललकममरल

कनषकषरणककयनगयनहहउसममककसलभलपकनरककतसकटदकशरतनहहहलतलहह।ऐसकममकवदननअवर

नयनयनलयककआललचयनदकशकदननदक22.06.2022

ममककसलभलपकनरकनहसतककपकरनककनकलई

वहधनकनकआधनरनहहपनयनरनतनहह।तदनसनरआललचयनदकशकदननदक22.06.2022

पसषककयकरननक

यलगयहहतथनकनगरननलअसवलकनरककयकरननकयलगयहह। आदकश

15.

दननणडकपसनरलकणअसवलकनरककयनरनतनहह।

16.

कवदननकवशकषमसखयनयनकयकमधरसटटकट(कसटम),

लखनऊदनरनपनररतपशनगतआदकश

कदननदक22.06.2022

पसषककयनरनतनहह।

17.

पतनवललकनयमननसनरदनधखलदफतरककरनए।" Impeaching the impugned orders dated 22.06.2022 and 10.09.2024, under challenge, learned counsel for the petitioner says that Magistrate and also the revisional court committed error of fact and law both, as both the courts did not consider the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court dated 10.12.2018 in its true spirit, which was affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.09.2022, as such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. Learned AGA on the contrary opposed the present petition. He says that the impugned orders dated 22.06.2022 and 10.09.2024, under challenge, are just and proper and are not liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is also stated that a bare perusal of the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the trial court would indicate that in absence of proper evidence, the judgment of acquittal was passed and based upon the observations/findings recorded in the judgment of the trial court, it cannot be inferred that it is a case of false implication in view of the fact that the opposite party No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and wife of deceased. He also stated that the basic ground to file the complaint case is to the effect that on account of false implication, the son of the petitioner expired on 01.01.2017, which is contrary to the record particularly the death summary of Medanta Hospital. The prayer is to dismiss the present petition. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid including the fact(s), which appears from the record that a bare perusal of the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the trial court would indicate that in absence of appropriate evidence, the judgment of acquittal dated 10.12.2018 was passed and based upon the observations/findings recorded in the judgment of the trial court, it cannot be inferred that the said case was of false implication in view of the fact that the opposite party No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner and wife of deceased and also that the basic ground to file the complaint to the effect that on account of false implication, the son of the petitioner expired on 01.01.2017, is contrary to the record particularly the death summary of Medanta Hospital, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the orders impugned dated 22.06.2022 and 10.09.2024. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to cost. Order Date :- 8.11.2024 Arun/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench