Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Meena Srivastava vs State Of U.P on 9 April, 2025
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.17514-17515 of 2024)
MEENA SRIVASTAVA & ANR. … APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals are directed against the impugned order
dated 30.05.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, whereby the High Court remanded the case for retrial to
the Sessions Court on the ground of framing the charge of
substantive offences under Section 304B, 498A and 316 read with 34,
IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alternatively 302
read with 34 IPC. While remanding the case for retrial, the High
Court observed as under:
“46. Though we have already quashed all the impugned
judgment and orders mentioned herein above, but fact
remains that this is a serious matter where respective
married ladies died within 7 years of their marriage
under suspicious and unnatural circumstances and
therefore the truth must come out on the surface and
guilty person must be punished and penalized. In order
to obtain the larger good, rule of law must prevail at
any cost, and therefore, this Court directs that all the
Signature Not Verified
sessions trials should be re-tried for which the court
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.04.16
19:48:51 IST
is duly empowered by Section 386 of Cr.P.C. to hold a
Reason:
retrial of the case. For convenience, at this juncture,
Section 386 of Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below”
“Section – 386 After perusing such record and hearing the
appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public
2
Prosecutor, if he appears, and in case of an appeal under
section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears,
the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no
sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or
may
(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such
order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the
accused be re-tried or committed for trial, as the case
may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him
according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by
a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such
Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii)with or without altering the finding, alter the
nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the
sentence, but not so as to enhance the same;
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by
a Court competent to try the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter
the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent,
of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such
order;
(e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental
order that may be just or proper; Provided that the
sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had
an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement;
Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict
greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the
accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for
that offence by the Court passing the order or sentence
under appeal.”
49. Evaluating and assessing the present controversy in
its entirety where the respective trial courts supposedly
have framed the charge under the dictate and command of
Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Rajib alias
Raju and another vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 15 SCC 116,
whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court has circulated the judgment
to all the courts throughout the country. As mentioned
earlier, in the small judgment running in only seven
paragraphs there is no reasoning for giving a direction,
but it seems that it was an emotional cry which was later
on clarified by yet another judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in Jasvinder Saini’s case (supra), but the learned
Trial Judges in State of U.P. keep on fastening the
alternative charge by way of adding Section 302 I.P.C.,
3
unmindful of the fact that whether sufficient material was
collected during investigation or not for prima facie
justifying the adding of alternative charge of Section 302
I.PC.
Secondly, fastening of the provisions of Section
106 of Evidence Act indiscreetly just to condemn and
convict the husband and his relatives with the aid and
help of aforesaid provisions of law which is in stark
contrast with the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Balvir Singh’s case (supra).
50. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
these are the apt cases where retrial could be ordered as
the same has occurred after serious legal flaw and
irregularity on account of the misconception of nature of
proceedings. Accordingly, let the record of these cases be
remitted back by the Registry of this Court within next 15
days to the concerned Sessions Court for re-trial after
recasting the “charges” framed against the accused-
appellants strictly in accordance with the ratio laid down
in the cases of Jasvinder Saini and others vs. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 256 and (ii)
Vijay Pal Singh and others vs. State of Uttarakhand,
(2014) 15 SCC 163, after holding a day to day trial and
conclude the same by 31st December, 2024 without granting
any unreasonable adjournment to either of the parties.
This Court would appreciate if the concerned learned Trial
Judges would fix 2-3 days in a week to conclude the
trial.”
Apart from this, the Division Bench of the High Court has
also used intemperate language which is not expected in judicial
orders; terming the directions of this Court as an “emotional cry”
and dictated the Trial Court to frame charges in a particular way.
Be that as it may, we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that the
reasons assigned by the High Court for re-trial are definitely not
justified.
We, accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the
impugned order in its entirety and request the High Court to hear
the appeal(s), after giving notice to the parties. Considering the
fact that the matter has been delayed, we request the High Court to
4
conclude the hearing as early as possible.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the six appellants herein were in two appeals before the High
Court and the instant appeals are only against the judgment passed
in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5193 of 2023 and 5671 of 2023. The High
Court is requested to hear the said appeals together.
The State counsel is given liberty to move an appropriate
application before this Court to list all the other appeals on
which also the impugned order has been passed.
As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory
applications also stand disposed of.
.........................J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
.........................J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 09, 2025.
5
ITEM NO.34 COURT NO.9 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).17514-
17515/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-05-2024
in CRLA No.5193/2023 and CRLA No.5671/2023 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad]
MEENA SRIVASTAVA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s)
IA No. 280256/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 280258/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 24229/2025 – MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER
Date : 09-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate General
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.
Mrs. Nikita Jaju, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory
applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6
[ad_1]
Source link