VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date.
2. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 287 of the Criminal Procedure Code itself.
3. Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 227 and 228-Discharge-Scope of consideration is where there is sufficient ground for proceeding -Standard of proof adhered to at final stage is not to applied-Exercise is to find out whether a prima facie case against accused has been made out-A roving enquiry into pros and cons of the case by weighing evidence not warranted at this stage-Whether Sessions Judge can look into any material other than those produced by prosecution?-(Yes)-Sessions Judge is empowered to consider even materials which accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227- When Judge is certain that there is no prospect of case ending in conviction-Valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for purpose of formally completing procedure to pronounce conclusion on a future date.
       Held : When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible: is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is where there is "sufficient ground for proceeding". (Para 9)
       Further held : The object of providing such an opportunity as is envisaged in Section 227 of the Code is to enable the Court to decide whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial. If the case ends there it gains a lot of time of the Court and saves much human efforts and cost. If the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage would clinch the issue, why should the Court shut it out saying that such documents need be produced only after wasting a lot more time in the name of trial proceedings. Hence, we are of the view that Sessions Judge would be within his powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Code. (Para 12)
       But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself. (Para13)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 227 and 228- Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 354, 376 and 498-A-Complaint by wife against her husband-Allegations of committing sexualoffences against her 18 months old female child-Complaint berefit of truth-Trial is going to be nothing but a force-Such a course of action should not be allowed to take place on account of impending consequences befalling an innocent child, now eight years four months old-Proceedings quashed-Appellant discharged.
       Held : Even overlooking all the inherent infirmities shrouding the testimony of a tiny tot speaking about what her father did when she was aged 3 and even ignoring the appellant s persistant submission that the little child was briskly tutored by her mother to speak to the present version, there is no reasonable prospect of the Sessions Court relying on such a testimony to reach the conclusion that the prosecution succeeded in proving the offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 20)
       Further held : Over and above that, what would be the consequence if this nebulous allegation is allowed to proceed to the trial stage. We foresee that Nikita, the child witness, now eight years and four months old, must necessarily be subjected to cross-questions involving sex and sex organs. The traumatic impact on the child when she would be confronted by volley of questions dealing with such a subject is a matter of concern to us. We cannot brush aside the submission of the appellant that such an ordeal would inflict devastating impairement on the development of child s personality. Of course, if such a course is of any use to the cause of justice, we may have to bear with it as an inevitable course of action to be resorted to. But in this case, when the trial is going to be nothing but a farce, such a course of action should not be allowed to take place on account of the impending consequences befalling an innocent child. (Para 21)

Judgement Key Points

Summary of the Case

A wife accused her husband (the appellant, Satish Mehra) of sexually abusing their infant daughter, Nikita (aged about 18 months at the alleged time), including outraging her modesty and attempting rape. (!) [1000008090006] The couple had lived in New York since marriage, with three children; their relationship was strained due to disputes over finances, custody, and alleged violence. [1000008090001] The wife first complained to US police in 1992, but investigation cleared the husband of abuse. [1000008090001][1000008090014] She returned to India in 1993 with the children amid a US custody order favoring the husband, then filed complaints in Delhi alleging abuse in India (March-July 1991, East of Kailash). [1000008090002][1000008090003][1000008090004][1000008090014] An FIR was registered under IPC Sections 354 and 498A, later adding Section 376; the case was committed to Sessions Court. [1000008090004][1000008090005]

The Sessions Judge discharged on Section 498A but framed charges under Sections 354 and 376/511 IPC. [1000008090005][1000008090006] The Supreme Court examined whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed under CrPC Sections 227-228, emphasizing a prima facie assessment (not full trial proof) to avoid futile trials wasting court time, especially where conviction is improbable. (!) (!) [1000008090008][1000008090012] It held Sessions Judges may consider accused-produced materials at the Section 227 stage to enable early discharge if issues are "clinched," saving resources amid heavy caseloads. [1000008090009][1000008090010][1000008090011][1000008090012]

No sufficient grounds existed here: allegations seemed incredulous for a father against an infant; US probe disproved similar claims; wife's prior complaint omitted Indian incidents and reflected vengefulness; child's statements appeared tutored (e.g., leading questions by CAW Cell); medical reports conflicted (normal US exam post-alleged acts vs. later Indian finding); trial would traumatize the now 8-year-old child witness with no conviction prospect. [1000008090013][1000008090014][1000008090015][1000008090017][1000008090018][1000008090019][1000008090020] Proceedings and charges were quashed; appellant discharged. [1000008090021][1000008090022] (!)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Some eerie accusations have been made by a wife against her husband. Incestous sexual abuse, incredulous ex facie, is being attributed to the husband. Police on her complaint conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the appellant, who has filed this Criminal Appeal by special leave as he did not succeed in his approach to the High Court at the F.I.R. stage itself.

2. More details of the case are these : Appellant (Satish Mehra) and his wife (Anita Mehra) were living in New York ever since their marriage. They have three children among whom the eldest daughter (Nikita) was born on 2nd April, 1988. Before and after the birth of the children relationship between husband and wife was far from cordial. Husband alleged that his wife, in conspiracy with her father, had siphoned off a whopping sum from his bank deposits in India by forging his signature. He also alleged that his wife is suffering from some peculiar psychiatric condition. He approached a court at New York for securing custody of his children. On 31.10.1992 his wife left his house with the children and then filed a complaint with Saffolk County Police Station (United States) alleging that her husband had sexually abused Nikita who was then aged four. United States police at the local level moved into action, but after conducting detailed investigation concluded that the allegations of incestuous abuse are untrue.

3. On 7.3.1993, appellant s wife (Anita) returned to India with her children. In the meanwhile Family Court at New York has ordered that custody of the children be given to the husband and a warrant of arrest was issued against Anita for implementation of the said order.

4. The battle field between the parties was thereafter shifted to India as she came back home. On 19.3.1993, Anita filed a complaint to the "Crime Against Women Cell" (CAW Cell for short) New Delhi in which she stated that her husband committed sex abuses with Nikita while they were in United States and further alleged that appellant committed certain matrimonial misdemeanour on his wife. But e complaint was closed for want to jurisdiction for the CAW Cell to investigate into what happened in United States. Appellant returned to India on 12.7.1993 and thereafter filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for securing the custody of the children.

5. The present case is based on a complaint filed by Anita before Greater Kailash Police Station on 14.8.1993. FIR was prepared and a case was registered as Crime No. 197/93 for offences under Sections 354 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On 25.8.1993, the investigating officer moved the Sessions Court for adding Section 376 of the IPC also. The case was charge sheeted by the police and it was committed to the Court of Sessions.

6. As committal proceedings took place during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, this Court directed the Sessions Judge on 22.2.1996 to apply its mind to the case committed and see whether a case for framing charge/charges has been made out or not". Learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed order, found that no charge under Section 498-A IPC could be framed against the appellant, but charge for offences under Sections 354 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC should be framed against him. Accordingly, the charge has been framed with the said two counts.

7. First count in the charge is that appellant had outraged the modesty of his minor daughter aged about 3 years during some time between March and July, 1991 at D-108, East of Kailash, New Delhi by fondling with her vagina and also by inserting bottle into it and thereby committed the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. Second count in the charge is that he made an attempt to commit rape on the said infant child (time and place are the same) and thereby committed the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC.

8. At this stage it is superfluous to consider whether the FIR is liable to be quashed as both sides argued on the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1150

Summary of the Case

Cases Referred (4)