1995 JTR(SC) 952
1995 3 AICLR 714 ; 1995 4 CCR(SC) 49 ; 1995 CriLR 695 ; 1995 3 Crimes(SC) 818 ; 1996 1 EastCrC(SC) 367 ; 1995 7 JT 175 ; 1995 3 RCR(Cri) 638 ; 1995 5 Scale 328 ; 1995 5 SCC 751 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 1020 ; 1995 KHC 1326
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE DR A.S. ANANDANDG.T. NANAVATI, JJ.
DEEPTI ALIAS ARATI RAI
Versus
AKHIL RAI AND OTHERS .
Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 22-7-1994 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 4495 of 1993}
Decided on 14-9-1995
Advocates appeared:
A.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Pramod Swarup, Advocate, for the Respondents.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482, S.397(3)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.498(a)
(A) The applicability of Section 482 Cr PC read with Section 498-A IPC is determinative of this case, wherein the inherent power of the High Court to quash complaints where no specific overt act is attributed to in-laws is examined against the backdrop of procedural bars under Sections 397(3) and 482 Cr PC, juxtaposed with the mandatory duty of the State to conduct a responsible investigation before conceding to the merits of the accused. The Indian Penal Code Section 498(a) defines the offense of cruelty by husband or relatives, reinforcing the scope of dowry harassment in matrimonial disputes, while the Criminal Procedure Code provisions regulate the maintenance of jurisdiction and the cessation of proceedings where formal requirements are unmet.
(B) Key legal principles include that a charge under Section 498-A IPC cannot be quashed merely on the basis of in-laws being unrelated to specific overt acts if the complaint reveals a pattern of harassment by the husband with their active participation, and that the State must scrutinize the record before accepting concessions, especially where second revision applications are impermissible and inherent powers are not to be exercised to bypass procedural bars.
Facts of the case:
The wife lodged a complaint alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and physical and mental torture by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, including demands for cash and violence over several years. An investigation led to a charge-sheet, and the accused filed a revision that was dismissed, followed by a quashing of the charge against the in-laws under Section 482 Cr PC, prompting the wife to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the in-laws were integral to the allegations, there was sufficient material for framing a charge against them, the Government Advocate erred in conceding without reviewing the record, and the High Court improperly applied Section 482 Cr PC to nullify the charge against the in-laws.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the charge against the in-laws under Section 482 Cr PC when the complaint implicated them in the harassment, and whether the States concession was valid without a proper review of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the complaint provided adequate material to frame charges against all accused, including in-laws, and that the High Courts reliance on an unverified concession violated principles of due process and statutory procedure, necessitating the setting aside of the impugned order.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts judgment is set aside, and the case is directed to proceed before the Judicial Magistrate for further action.
(A) The applicability of Section 482 Cr PC read with Section 498-A IPC is determinative of this case, wherein the inherent power of the High Court to quash complaints where no specific overt act is attributed to in-laws is examined against the backdrop of procedural bars under Sections 397(3) and 482 Cr PC, juxtaposed with the mandatory duty of the State to conduct a responsible investigation before conceding to the merits of the accused. The Indian Penal Code Section 498(a) defines the offense of cruelty by husband or relatives, reinforcing the scope of dowry harassment in matrimonial disputes, while the Criminal Procedure Code provisions regulate the maintenance of jurisdiction and the cessation of proceedings where formal requirements are unmet.
(B) Key legal principles include that a charge under Section 498-A IPC cannot be quashed merely on the basis of in-laws being unrelated to specific overt acts if the complaint reveals a pattern of harassment by the husband with their active participation, and that the State must scrutinize the record before accepting concessions, especially where second revision applications are impermissible and inherent powers are not to be exercised to bypass procedural bars.
Facts of the case:
The wife lodged a complaint alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and physical and mental torture by her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, including demands for cash and violence over several years. An investigation led to a charge-sheet, and the accused filed a revision that was dismissed, followed by a quashing of the charge against the in-laws under Section 482 Cr PC, prompting the wife to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the in-laws were integral to the allegations, there was sufficient material for framing a charge against them, the Government Advocate erred in conceding without reviewing the record, and the High Court improperly applied Section 482 Cr PC to nullify the charge against the in-laws.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the charge against the in-laws under Section 482 Cr PC when the complaint implicated them in the harassment, and whether the States concession was valid without a proper review of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that the complaint provided adequate material to frame charges against all accused, including in-laws, and that the High Courts reliance on an unverified concession violated principles of due process and statutory procedure, necessitating the setting aside of the impugned order.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Courts judgment is set aside, and the case is directed to proceed before the Judicial Magistrate for further action.
A.K.Sanghi, PRAMOD SVARUP
JUDGMENT
NANAVATI, J.- Leave granted.
2. The appellant made a complaint to the Officer-in-charge of Women Police Station, Bilaspur alleging demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty by Respondents 1, 2 and 3 being the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. The police after making investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the said respondents in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur, indicating commission of an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Magistrate after supplying copies of the charge-sheet and other documents and hearing the learned Advocate for the accused framed a charge under Section 498-A. The order framing the charge was challenged by the accused by filing Criminal Revision No. 260 of 1993 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Additional Judge was of the view that there was sufficient material to frame a charge against all the accused and therefore, dismissed the revision application. Thereafter the accused approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr PC with a prayer to quash the said charge and the proceedings instituted upon the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet. The High Court referred to its earlier order dated 29-10-1993 whereby Respondent 1s application for quashing the charge was rejected. It then proceeded to consider the application of Respondents 2 and 3 for quashing the charge. In its order the High Court has observed that:
"On perusal of the record, it transpires that no specific overt act is attributed to Applicants 2 and 3, who are in-laws of the informant. The allegation that she was subjected to physical and mental torture are attributed to her husband who is not an applicant in this case."
3. It then referred to the concession made by the Deputy Government Advocate that "there is no material for framing of charge against the present applicants under Section 498-A IPC". On these grounds it allowed the application and quashed the charge framed under Section 498-A against Applicants 2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the wife has approached this Court.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-wife that the finding recorded by the High Court that there is no allegation of beating, harassment and demand against Respondents 2 and 3 is because of misreading the complaint and the other material on record. In view of this contention, we have gone through the complaint filed by the appellant and also the statements of Suresh Chandra Verma, father of the appellant, Devesh, elder brother of the appellant and Ramesh, cousin of the appellant. In her complaint the appellant has clearly stated that three or four months after the marriage her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her as VCR was not given to her in dowry. She has further stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to demand Rs 6500 in cash. She has also stated that she was beaten by her husband on 27-7-1990, 4-10-1990, 12-1-1991, 28-1-1991, 31-1-1991, 12-2-1991 and 8-3-1992 and that her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to join her husband in beating her and abusing her relatives. She has also stated that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband had not given food to her on 24/25-4-1992. Devesh, in his statement, has stated that Respondent 1 used to beat his sister after taking liquor and her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to harass her. Ramesh has also stated in his statement that he was informed by the appellant that she was harassed by her husband and parents-in-law. He has further stated that she was asked to bring money for VCR by her husband and by the parents-in-law. From what we have pointed out, it becomes apparent that there was sufficient material for the learned Magistrate for framing a charge under Section 498-A even against Respondents 2 and 3. It further appears to us that the learned Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State before the High Court made the concession without going through the record. We are constrained to observe that the learned Government Advocate should have conducted the case in a more responsible manner considering the nature of the case. The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993.
For Citation: (1995) 5 SCC 751