AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The First Information Report (FIR) No.85/2012 was registered on 12.03.2012 by Police Station Vijay Vihar on the complaint of the petitioner, she
leveling allegations against her husband, the second respondent, of he having committed certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences
punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 on Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). On conclusion of the investigation report (charge sheet) under Section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted on which cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate. By order dated
15.01.2015, the Metropolitan Magistrate found charge made out to put the second respondent on trial for offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC. The
second respondent challenged the said order in the court of Sessions by Criminal Revision Petition No.33/2015 which was decided by order dated
14.08.2015, the revisional court setting aside the order of the Magistrate and directing the second respondent to be discharged holding, inter alia, that
no prima facie case has been made out against him.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has come up to this court invoking inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
assailing the view taken by the revisional court. The petition is resisted by the second respondent while the first respondent (State) supports the
grievance raised by the complainant (the petitioner).
The revisional court in the impugned order has taken note, inter alia, of the law governing the question of consideration of a criminal case for charge
as explained in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366. In later decision of the Supreme Court reported aSs ajjan Kumar vs.
CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the principles governing the question of charge were explained thus:-
On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie
case would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be
fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total
effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving
enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge,
though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court
must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts
emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift
the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common
sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.â€
The parties herein were married to each other on 25.04.2008. The petitioner had reasons to approach the police earlier with similar grievances
against the second respondent and at her instance on her complaint, FIR No.258/2009 was registered by Police Station Vijay Vihar. The second
respondent, however, persuaded the petitioner to resume cohabitation, the parties deciding to bury the hatchet. On the basis of settlement then
reached, a petition (Crl.M.C.1057/2010) having been filed in this court, the proceedings arising out of the said FIR No.258/2009 were quashed. It may
be added here that the petitioner had also simultaneously approached the criminal court with a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the wake of the amicable settlement, she was persuaded to withdraw the said petition as well.
The petitioner approached the police again on 12.03.2012 referring to the past conduct and history and stating, inter alia, that the second respondent
had continued with his conduct whereby she was being subjected to cruelty by him, he also having continued to demand dowry, extending threats to
her, he having physically assaulted her several times, picking up quarrels and extending threats to kill her and take away the child of the parties
forcibly from her.
Whilst the Metropolitan Magistrate found the evidence gathered in the wake of investigation into the fresh FIR to be sufficient, the revisional court
has trashed the case of the petitioner primarily on the reasoning that the allegations made by her are “not specificâ€, they being “vague†. It
has further been noted in the revisional court’s order that the stridhan articles of the petitioner had been seized during the investigation into earlier
FIR No.258/2009 and had been handed over to her and the second respondent had also paid an amount of Rs.1.5 lacs to her “in lieu of jewelleryâ€
at that stage. This, in the opinion of the revisional court, renders it a case where the charge of criminal breach of trust could not be leveled.
Having heard both sides and having gone through the record, this court finds the reasons set out in the revisional court’s order declining the plea
for charge under Section 406 IPC to be just and proper. Indeed, since the stridhan articles had been seized and restored to the custody and control of
the petitioner (complainant) the second respondent even having paid money in lieu of the jewllery which was found deficient at that stage, there being
no fresh case of any entrustment of stridhan articles or any property of the petitioner, there is no basis for the second respondent to be put in trial on
the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
But, in the given facts and circumstances and having regard to the evidence that has been presented with the charge sheet submitted pursuant to
the second FIR, particularly the version of the petitioner, it cannot be said that no case is made out for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. It is not
correct to trash her case on the ground that her allegations are vague or non specific. On the contrary, she has clearly stated the circumstances
constituting acts of commission or omission which render it a case of cruelty within the meaning of the expression used in Section 498-A IPC.
In these circumstances, it was incorrect and improper on the part of the revisional court to have interfered with the view taken by the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate.
For the foregoing reasons and in the circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. The order dated 26.03.2015 of the Metropolitan Magistrate to
the extent thereby second respondent was directed to be put on trial on the charge under Section 498-A IPC stands restored and revived. The order
of discharge for that offence passed by the revisional court shall stand vacated. The proceedings in the criminal case will continue accordingly.
The parties are directed to appear before the concerned criminal court on 4th December, 2018.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms.