AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih took cognizance against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2016 and also to quash the order dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Giridih by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Giridih has framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner in connection with S.T. Case No. 158 of 2017 arising out of Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2016.
The brief fact of the case is that upon the death of the wife of the petitioner within 7 years of marriage wherein she died otherwise than under normal circumstances by sustaining burn injuries and there is allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner. Basing upon such materials on record, Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 254 of 2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304B read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation of the case submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and after the case being committed to the learned Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Giridih framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner abandons all the other prayers as mentioned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and confines his prayer only to the prayer that a joint compromise petition has been filed by the petitioner and in the informant vide I.A. No. 6970 of 2026 wherein it has been mentioned that the parties do not wants to proceed with the case. Hence, they have agreed to settle the case outside the Court with intervention of well-wishers. In support of its contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Narindra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014 vide judgment dated 27th March, 2014 para 31 (III) of which reads as under:-
“31.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I). Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II). When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i)ends of justice, or
(ii)to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III). Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.” (Emphasis supplied) wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the power to quash is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity and offences which are not private in nature and offences which have a serious impact on society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further summed up and laid down the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. while accepting settlement and quashing the proceeding or refusing to accept settlement with the direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer made in this Cr.M.P. and submits that a case of dowry death is a most heinous and serious offence involving mental depravity. Such offences are not private in nature because it has serious impact on the society relating to evil practice of demand of dowry. Hence, it is submitted that in view of the principle of law laid down in the case of Narinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra), it is not a fit case to quash and set aside the F.I.R. as well as entire criminal proceedings. It is lastly submitted that, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit be dismissed.
Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the learned Magistrate in a case which is based on a Police Report, cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance; as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge as has been held in case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659 Para-15 of which reads as under:-
“15.The question, therefore, emerges as to whether the complainant/informant/prosecution would be precluded from seeking a remedy if the investigating authorities have failed in their duty by not including all the sections of IPC on which offence can be held to have been made out in spite of the facts disclosed in the FIR. The answer obviously has to be in the negative as the prosecution cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice by ignoring exclusion of the sections which constitute the offence if the investigating authorities for any reason whatsoever have failed to include all the offences into the charge-sheet based on the FIR on which investigation had been conducted. But then a further question arises as to whether this lacunae can be allowed to be filled in by the Magistrate before whom the matter comes up for taking cognizance after submission of the charge-sheet and as already stated, the Magistrate in a case which is based on a police report cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance as the same would be permissible by the trial court only at the time of framing of charge under Sections 216, 218 or under Section 228 CrPC as the case may be which means that after submission of the charge-sheet it will be open for the prosecution to contend before the appropriate trial court at the stage of framing of charge to establish that on the given state of facts the appropriate sections which according to the prosecution should be framed can be allowed to be framed. Simultaneously, the accused also has the liberty at this stage to submit whether the charge under a particular provision should be framed or not and this is the appropriate forum in a case based on police report to determine whether the charge can be framed and a particular section can be added or removed depending upon the material collected during investigation as also the facts disclosed in the FIR and the charge-sheet.”
Since the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, so in view of the settled principle of law, the Magistrate concerned was supposed to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but at the time of framing of charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Giridih was well within its right to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as the materials in the record are undisputedly sufficient to constitute the same. So far as the contention that settlement has been arrived at between the parties, is concerned, the victim is dead now. The offence of dowry death is a heinous offence and serious offence of mental depravity. Such offence is not private in nature and has a serious impact and ramifications on society relating to evil practice of demand of dowry. Under such circumstances, in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Narinder Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra), this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings and the F.I.R. be quashed and set aside only because the petitioner and the informant who is not the victim entered into a settlement.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.
Consequently, the Interlocutory Application No.6970 of 2026 is disposed of.