HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. (Order on Application seeking leave to file appeal) 1. Heard Shri Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Virendra Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. 2. This is an application seeking special leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge/ FTC/(J.D.) Crime against Women, Balrampur in Complaint Case No.488/24/20 under Section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. 3. While pressing the application seeking leave to file appeal against the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case of demand of dowry and harassment but the trial Court has erred in negating this contention. 4. A bare perusal of the judgment of the trial Court indicates that it has recorded that as per the complainant's version, when she was turned out of her matrimonial home on 14.07.2020 for pressing the demand of dowry, she was accompanied by her father and two other persons Musibat and Abdul Majid. Musibat and Abdul Majid have been cross-examined and they have not supported the allegations that the complainant was beaten up for demanding dowry. The trial Court has recorded that from the evidence on record it appears that some articles were given at the time of marriage but the same were Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeshwar Prasad, Vikas Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ishratjahan @ Gudiya .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) given with the consent of the complainant and her father. In the examination-in-chief of the complainant, she has not levelled any allegation regarding any demand. The prosecution witnesses Musibat and Abdul Majid have stated that in their cross-examination that they came to know about whatever was told by the complainant to her father, from her father and, therefore, their evidence is merely hearsay evidence. The trial Court has held that the standard of proof required for the accused persons have to prove their innocence is of preponderance of probabilities and the accused persons have established their innocence by the aforesaid standard. 5. The trial Court has further drawn an adverse inference against the complainant for the reason that she has not got her parents examined by the trial Court and she has failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Having gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, this court is of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court is a well reasoned judgment given after dealing with all the relevant material available on record. 7. The findings of the trial Court are not perverse and, therefore, there is no good ground to grant leave to file appeal against the aforesaid order. 8. The leave application is hereby rejected. (Order on delay condonation application) 1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge/ FTC/(J.D.) Crime against Women, Balrampur , there is no occasion for issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. 2. Let the delay condonation application be consigned to records. (Order on Appeal) 1. As this Court has rejected the application seeking leave to file Appeal, let the appeal be consigned to records. September 4, 2025 -Amit K- A378D No. 129 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench