HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11701 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been preferred aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge F.T.C.-II in Session Case No. 726 of 2024, arising out of case crime no. 81 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Chetganj, District Varanasi, whereby the petitioner's discharge application has been rejected. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2023 at about 10:30 AM, the complainant received a telephonic information that his daughter had allegedly committed suicide by hanging. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, the complainant found his daughter hanging from a ceiling fan. Thereafter, an FIR, being Case Crime No. 81 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, was registered at Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated without there being any free, fair, or proper investigation. It is stated that petitioner no. 1, Babulal Yadav, himself had informed the police about the incident and was present at the time of preparation of the inquest report, and that he fully cooperated with the investigating officer. It is further submitted that the petitioners reside at some distance from the place of occurrence and there is no cogent material to indicate their Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Babulal Yadav And Another .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) involvement in the alleged incident. According to learned counsel, no incriminating evidence has been collected against the petitioners during investigation, and they have been arrayed as accused merely on the basis of the complainant's statement. Learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid facts while deciding the discharge application, rendering the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that there are specific and serious allegations against the petitioners in connection with the incident resulting in the death of the complainant's daughter, which is alleged to have occurred on account of an additional demand of dowry. It is not in dispute that the death took place within two years of the marriage and within the matrimonial home. The petitioners are also stated to be residing in the same vicinity. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners essentially relate to the appreciation and evaluation of the evidence collected during investigation, which cannot be examined in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such matters are within the exclusive domain of the trial court and are to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage in accordance with law. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the order dated 05.08.2025 so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. October 8, 2025 A. Tripathi A227 No. 11701 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad