Deepti
@ Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors [1995] INSC 501 (14 September 1995)
Nanavati
G.T. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J) Anand, A.S. (J) Nanavati, J.
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 751 JT 1995 (7) 175 1995 SCALE (5)328
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
The
appellant made a complaint to the officer Incharge of Women Police Station, Bilaspur
alleging demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty by respondents no. 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, Ist 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 Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.
The learned Addl. 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. P.C. 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 dt. 29.10.93 whereby respondent No.1's application for quashing
the charge was rejected. It then proceeded to consider the application of respondents
no.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 the 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." 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 nos.2 and 3. Feeling
aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the wife has
approached this Court.
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 27.7.90, 4.10.90, 12.1.91, 28.1.91, 31.1.91, 12.2.91 and 8.3.92 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 24/25th April, 1992. Devesh, in his statement, has stated that
respondent no.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
no.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 cannot 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 impunged judgment and order passed
by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bilaspur to
proceed further with Criminal Case No.69 of 1993.
Back