Back
2010 (2) Supreme 543
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and C.K. Prasad , JJ.
K. Neelaveni — Appellant
versus
State Rep. By Insp. of Police & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2010
[arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.3562 of 2009]
Decided on : 22-03-2010
Facts of the Case :
Charge sheet was registered under Sections 406. 494 and 498A of IPC against accused persons respondent Nos. 2 to 13 herein in the instant case on a complaint filed by appellant wife. Appellant had alleged that her husband had married another lady without her consent with the help and in the presence of other accused persons and that a female child was born to them in the wedlock. A Petition was filed by Accused persons respondent Nos. 2 to 13 for quashing charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of IPC.Said petition was allowed by High Court holding that charge sheet did not reveal ingredients constituting the offences under Section 494 and 406 IPC.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Perusal of allegations made in First Information Report showed that appellant had clearly alleged that her husband had married another lady and said marriage had taken place in the presence and with the support of other accused persons. She had also stated that from second marriage a girl child was born. In the First Information Report, it had clearly been alleged that besides gold ornaments other household articles were given in marriage and further she was subjected to cruelty and driven out from the matrimonial home by the accused persons. Held allegations made in FIR , at this stage, have to be accepted as true, and allegations so made prima facie, constituted offences under Sections 406 and 494 of IPC. Hence High Court erred in holding that charge sheet did not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of IPC. Apart from that, quashing of Sections 406 and 494 of IPC from the charge sheet even before the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure was Undesirable. Again High Court ought not to have interfered after the submission of the charge sheet and even before the Magistrate examining as to whether the accused persons deserved to be discharged in terms of Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence impugned judgment of High Court was held unsustainable. Appeal was allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Hon. C.K. Prasad, J. —
Leave granted.
1. The appellant-wife aggrieved by the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 23473 of 2008, whereby it had quashed the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal seeking special leave to appeal.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-wife K. Neelaveni on 07/11/2002 gave a written report to the Inspector of Selaiyur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that her marriage was performed with accused respondent No. 2 - S.K. Siva Kumar on 3rd September, 1997 in which gold ornaments and various other household articles were given by her parents. She had further alleged that her husband used to abuse her and her family members under influence of alcohol and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. According to the First Information Report, when she was pregnant, on scan it was found that she was carrying a female foetus, her husband and his family members started harassing her and insisted for aborting the child. On her refusal to give consent for abortion according to the informant on 18.1.1998, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law assaulted her and had driven her out from the matrimonial home and the husband left her on way to her parents house. She gave birth to a girl child on 25.6.1998.
3. Informant in the written report had further alleged that her husband had married another lady namely, Bharathi without her consent with the help and in the presence of other accused persons. She had further alleged that a female child was born to them in the wedlock.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a case under Sections 406, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. Police after usual investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 406. 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Accused persons namely respondent Nos. 2 to 13 filed petition before the High Court for quashing the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, contending that in the absence of any material to show that “the second marriage was duly performed with religious rites and essential ceremonies” charge sheet under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is fit to be quashed. It was, further, contended that allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of investigation do not fulfill the ingredients of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Aforesaid submissions found favour with the High Court and it had quashed the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. While doing so the High Court observed as follows:-
“As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a careful reading of the complaint of the second respondent, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet do not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Section 494 and 406 IPC, yet the first respondent has chosen to file the charge for the said offences. Therefore, this court is constrained to quash the charge sheet as against the petitioners as far as the offences under Sections 406 and 494 IPC alone are concerned. It is made clear that the charge sheet as against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC is not quashed.”
6. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the charge sheet did not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is erroneous. He draws our attention to the First Information Report and submits that there is an allegation of the second marriage and even birth to a child and hence it cannot be said that ingredients constituting offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code do
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
