Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Sonu Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 285-287 OF 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.300-302 of 2013]
Decided On : 11-02-2015
(b) Constitution of India – Article 227 – No error in the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons – High Court ought not to interfere by considering merits of allegations and directing the appellant/complainant to lead further evidence and produce the original documents to show forgery. (Para 10)
17 CWN 290; [(2005)13 SCC 540; 1992 Crl.L.J. 1217; (2012) 11 SCC 465; (2012) 9 SCC 460; (2011) 11 SCC 259; (2000) 3 SCC 269; (2009) 6 SCC 372; (1979) 4 SCC 177; AIR 1956 SC 44; (2001) 6 SCC 704 – Referred
(1998) 5 SCC 749; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; (2011) 13 SCC 412; (2009) 9 SCC 682; (1977) 2 SCC 699 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Appellant and respondent no.1 were married in February 1997. A girl child was born to the appellant wife in May 1998. In 2001 the appellant gave information on various dates to several police authorities regarding alleged torture and harassment inflicted on her by respondent nos.1 to 8 for dowry as well as for giving birth to a girl child. However, owing to pressure by the common relatives and friends she withdrew her allegations against respondent no.1 who in turn withdrew Divorce Petition No.496/2000.
The appellant gave birth to another girl child in August 2002 much to the dislike of accused persons.
Anticipating legal action by the appellant against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.1 and his other relations named as accused, one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in April-May 2001, was changed and tampered as per convenience and a photocopy of such undated complaint making out a weak case against the respondents which was bound to fail, was got registered at the instance of the accused persons themselves with the help of some police officials as Criminal Case (FIR No.73/2002) on 06.10.2002 in the Mahila Thana, Raipur by the Town Inspector of this Thana under pressure of accused no.9, Additional Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur.
According to the complaint petition, the appellant informed the concerned court that the FIR No.73/2002 was neither filed by her nor signed by her and this FIR facilitated her husband and his relations who were accused to obtain anticipatory bail not only in FIR No.73/2002 but also in the case genuinely filed by the appellant against accused nos.1 to 8 under Sections 498A and 406, IPC in Women’s Cell, Kirti Nagar, Delhi registered as Complaint No.372/2004 on 15.06.2004. The appellant was also surprised to receive in July 2003 a notice of Divorce Petition filed by respondent no.1 in a Delhi court on 19.5.2003.
Ultimately, even after a CID investigation in favour of appellant’s case, when no action was taken against the culprits and no copy of the CID report was made available to the appellant, she filed a Writ Petition seeking the record of investigation report of CID and registration of a criminal case against the accused as well as investigation by CBI. In terms of directions of the High Court, the appellant was provided with copy of the CID investigation report and was also permitted to inspect the entire connected record.
Thereafter she filed the instant criminal complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur on 07.12.2010.
The Judicial Magistrate issued summons against accused nos.1 to 9.
The High Court, dismissed both the criminal revision petitions preferred by the appellant against grant of relief to accused nos.6 to 9 and allowed criminal miscellaneous petition of accused nos.1 to 5 by setting aside the summoning order of the Magistrate and directing the appellant to appear before the Court of Judicial Magistrate for adducing further evidence, if any, to support her allegation in the complaint petition. The High Court thus remitted back the matter with various observations requiring the appellant to produce alleged documents which could prove forgery and also to send the same to expert for examination of the document and signature of the complainant/appellant.
Finding of the Court:
High Court erred in interfering with order taking cognizance.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The parties have been heard in detail and they have also filed written submissions. Appellant is wife of respondent no.1 and is complainant in Criminal Complaint No.1213/2011 before Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur. The respondents are accused in this Complaint Case which was filed on 07.12.2010 for alleged offences under Section 464, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The appellant and respondent no.1 are undergoing a protracted matrimonial dispute. It is the case of appellant as well as respondent no.1 that they were married in February 1997. A girl child was born to the appellant in May 1998 and in 2001 the appellant gave informations on various dates to several police authorities regarding alleged torture and harassment inflicted on her by respondent nos.1 to 8 for dowry as well as for giving birth to a girl child. It is appellant’s case that in April 2001 itself there was pressure by the common relatives and friends leading to appellant withdrawing her allegations against respondent no.1 who in turn withdrew Divorce Petition No.496/2000 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order of Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 30th April 2001. The differences between the spouses got settled amicably in April-May 2001. The appellant gave birth to another girl child in August 2002 much to the dislike of accused persons.
4. The substance of the accusation in the instant complaint case is that anticipating legal action by the appellant against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.1 and his other relations named as accused, as a stratagem and outcome of a conspiracy, one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in April-May 2001, was changed and tampered as per convenience and a photocopy of such undated complaint making out a weak case against the respondents which was bound to fail, was got registered at the instance of the accused persons themselves with the help of some police officials as Criminal Case (FIR No.73/2002) on 06.10.2002 in the Mahila Thana, Raipur by the Town Inspector of this Thana under pressure of accused no.9, Additional Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur. According to the complaint petition, the appellant informed the concerned court that the FIR No.73/2002 was neither filed by her nor signed by her and this FIR facilitated her husband and his relations who were accused to obtain anticipatory bail not only in FIR No.73/2002 but also in the case genuinely filed by the appellant against accused nos.1 to 8 under Sections 498A and 406, IPC in Women’s Cell, Kirti Nagar, Delhi registered as Complaint No.372/2004 on 15.06.2004. The appellant was also surprised to receive in July 2003 a notice of Divorce Petition filed by respondent no.1 in a Delhi court on 19.5.2003. The appellant approached various authorities and tried to get an investigation into her allegations that FIR No.73/2002 was fraudulently registered to benefit the accused nos.1 to 8 and the appellant had no role in registering the same. Ultimately, even after a CID investigation in favour of appellant’s case, when no action was taken against the culprits and no copy of the CID report was made available to the appellant, she filed a Writ Petition No.1488/2005 before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur seeking the record of investigation report of CID and registration of a criminal case against the accused as well as investigation by CBI. In terms of directions of the High Court issued while disposing of the writ petition on 24.06.2010, the appellant was provided with copy of the CID investigation report and was also permitted to inspect the entire connected record. Thereafter appellant could find that the Station House Officer of Mahila Thana, Raipur as well as accused no.9, Additional Director General of Police, PHQ, Raipur also had played a role in fraudulent registration of
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
