Sukhpal, and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.

Sukhpal, and anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 02, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/912353

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/912353
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ram Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Decided On: Aug 02, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13437 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[A. P. BHANGALE, J.] - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302 read with 34 - Punishment for murder - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention --Applicant is brother of deceased Anjali who has filed present revision application. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respo...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 495

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhpal, and anr.

Advocate Imtiyaz Murtaza; Naheed Ara Moonis,JJ.

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 495

Excerpt

[a. p. bhangale, j.] - indian penal code (ipc) - sections 302 read with 34 - punishment for murder - acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention --applicant is brother of deceased anjali who has filed present revision application. heard learned counsel for applicant and learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 6. learned counsel for the applicant contends that deceased anjali suffered cruelty at the hands of her inlaws which led to her death. learned counsel for the applicant took me through evidence on record and contended that the impugned judgment and order suffers from infirmity and the prosecution ought to have resulted into conviction of the accused. learned counsel for accused/respondents no. 2 to 6 has supported the impugned judgment and order and he contends that in the medical evidence of doctor who conducted postmortem examination, there was no suggestion regarding any alternate possibility for cause of death although hanging may be homicidal or suicidal. learned trial judge has observed number of lacunae in the course of investigation which turned out to be fatal to prosecution case. learned trial judge has discussed evidence of dr dhawane and principles laid down in medical jurisprudence in thorough detail. .....on the date fixed. the said notice shall be served upon smt. urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4 through c.j.m concerned. it needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the mediation centre for reconciliation. 6. the centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. the case shall be listed in the first week of october, 2010 along with report of mediation centre. in the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed. 7. it may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the mediation centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the mediation centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter. 8. it may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this bench shall be listed before the appropriate bench. copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned Additional Government Advocate.

2. The argument substantially is that fraught relations emanating from matrimonial bickering escalated into launching of criminal proceeding vide F.I.R. which was registered at Case Crime No.480 of 2009, under Section 495 I.P.C., P.S. Khandauli, and District Agra.

3. Having considered the arguments advanced across the bar, we have a feeling that Court owes a duty to the society to strain to the utmost to repair the frayed relations between the parties so that the wounded situation may be healed into a healthy rapprochement. The matter in hand also appears to be one of those cases in which reconciliation should be tried between the disputing parties.

4. While referring the matter to Mediation Centre with the consent of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Mediation Centre by way of Bank draft drawn in favour of Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, out of which a sum of Rs.8000/- shall be payable to the victim, Smt. Urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4 and the remaining amount shall be kept for being utilised by the Mediation Centre. The amount aforesaid, it is further directed, shall be paid over to Smt. Urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4 on her appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed. The amount aforesaid, it may be clarified, are meant to meet expenses to be incurred for attending mediation sessions at Allahabad for Smt. Urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4 and the person escorting her.

5. The office upon deposit of the Bank draft shall issue notice within one week to Smt. Urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4, i.e the wife calling upon her to appear in the Mediation Centre at Allahabad HighCourt on a date to be indicated in the said notice stating therein that the Bank draft deposited by the petitioners shall be delivered in the Mediation Centre on the date fixed. The said notice shall be served upon Smt. Urmila, the daughter of respondent no.4 through C.J.M concerned. It needs hardly be said that both the parties shall appear either on the date fixed or on a future date as may be agreed before the Mediation Centre for reconciliation.

6. The Centre shall submit a report within one month from the date of parties appearing before it for reconciliation. The case shall be listed in the first week of October, 2010 along with report of Mediation Centre. In the meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioners in the aforesaid case shall remain stayed.

7. It may be made clear that in case, there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date or dates fixed, the interim order staying arrest shall cease to be operative and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the Bench concerned for passing appropriate order in the matter.

8. It may be clarified that the case will not be treated as tied up to this Bench shall be listed before the appropriate Bench. Copy of this order will not be issued unless steps are taken.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Sukhpal, and anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.). and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Ram Kumar Sinha, Adv. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 495

Criminal