Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Balveer Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2016
Decided On : 10-05-2016
(2006) 4 SCC 359 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 193 – Court of Sessions – Empowered to take cognizance of a case after its commitment to it – Then it acts like a court of original jurisdiction. (Para 9)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 190, 193 and 209 – U/s 190 Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and also commit the case to Sessions u/s 209 where it is triable by Sessions – On commitment Sessions court is empowered to act like a court of original jurisdiction and take cognizance u/s 193 – But cognizance can be taken only once – Hence while committing the case to Sessions u/s 190 Magistrate must be meant to act passively u/s 209. (Para 10, 15)
(2014) 3 SCC 306 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190, 193 and 209 – Sessions court u/s 193 is entitled to issue summons as a ‘Court of original jurisdiction' notwithstanding taking of cognizance by Magistrate u/s 190 – However, cognizance of an offence can only be taken once – Therefore provisions of Section 209 will mean that the Magistrate plays passive role in committing the case to the Court of Session. (Para 16)
(2014) 3 SCC 306; (1993) 2 SCC 16; (1995) 2 SCC 23 – Relied upon
(2014) 3 SCC 92 – Referred
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 193 – Committal of case to Sessions – Sessions court taking cognizance after committal and issuing summons – Cannot be treated as taking second cognizance of the same offence. (Para 19)
(2012) 12 SCC 406 – Relied upon
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190 and 193 – Police not including appellants as accused in its report – Complainant making application to Magistrate to take cognizance against appellants – Magistrate considering the application and rejecting the same and committing the case to Sessions – Complainant making similar application before Sessions court – Sessions court considering and accepting the same – Such course normally not permissible. (Para 21)
(g) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 190 and 193 – Order of Magistrate taking or refusing cognizance – Revisable by Sessions court on revision petition or suo motu – Sessions court entertaining complainant’s application for taking cognizance against appellants and in its revisional jurisdiction, after affording opportunity to appellants, taking cognizance – No infirmity. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The appellants in this appeal are the parents of one Abhimanyu Singh who was married to Renu on 24.02.2014.
Renu was found dead on 27.11.2014 i.e. within ten months of the wedding.
Cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging. Chargesheet was filed against Abhimanyu only, that too for committing the offence under Section 306 IPC, namely, abetting the suicide committed by Renu.
Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (JMFC) for taking cognizance against the appellants and Abhimanyu under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC which was dismissed and the case was committed before the Sessions Court.
Before the Sessions Court, respondent No. 2 preferred similar application once again. The Sessions Court took cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and, in the alternative, Section 306 IPC, against the appellants and their son. Issuance of bailable warrant against the appellants was directed.
Appellants along with their son Abhimanyu approached the High Court without success.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order does not warrant interference.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
The appellants in this appeal are the parents of one Abhimanyu Singh who was married to Renu on 24.02.2014. Renu was found dead on 27.11.2014 i.e. within ten months of the wedding. Cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging. An FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2 herein (Father of deceased) alleging that Renu was done to death by her husband Abhimanyu Singh as well as his parents (appellants herein) for not satiating the dowry demands of the accused persons. FIR has been registered under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants claimed that it was a case of suicide by hanging committed by Renu. Matter was investigated which resulted into the filing of chargesheet against Abhimanyu only, that too for committing the offence under Section 306 IPC, namely, abetting the suicide committed by Renu. As per the Police investigation there was no dowry demands and no offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC was made out. Instead it was a case of suicide and at the most Abhimanyu could be charged of abetting the suicide committed by Renu. For that reason, no challan was filed against the appellants herein. On the filing of the aforesaid chargesheet by the Police on 24.02.2015, respondent No. 2 filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (JMFC) for taking cognizance against the appellants and Abhimanyu under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.03.2015. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate committed the case before the Sessions Court as the offence under Section 306 IPC is triable by the Sessions Court. Before the Sessions Court, respondent No. 2 preferred similar application once again. Here, respondent No. 2 succeeded in his attempt inasmuch as vide order dated 08.10.2015, the learned Sessions Court took cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and, in the alternative, Section 306 IPC, against the appellants and their son. He, thus, directed issuance of bailable warrant against the appellants.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants along with their son Abhimanyu approached the High Court. High Court vide its order dated 04.11.2015 remanded the matter back to the Sessions Court with a direction to hear the parties and pass further orders in the light of judgment of this Court in Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC 306. The Sessions Court accorded fresh hearing and thereafter passed order dated 08.12.2015 thereby allowing the application once again to the extent of taking cognizance under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and, in the alternative, Section 306 IPC against the appellants as well as their son. The appellants challenged this order by filing revision petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court on 18.12.2015. This order is impugned in the present proceedings.
3. We may record at the outset that the sole ground on which the order was challenged before the High Court, as well as before us, is that when the Magistrate had dismissed the application of the complainant vide order dated 11.03.2015 and refused to take cognizance under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and this order had attained finality as no revision petition/criminal miscellaneous appeal was preferred either by the complainant or by the Public Prosecutor, second application with the same relief was not maintainable before the Sessions Court. It was emphatically argued that it amounted to second time cognizance by the Court of Sessions which was impermissible in law. It was argued that under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Code'), cognizance of the offence can be taken only once.
4. Thus, the question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Court of Sessions was empowered to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC, when similar application to this effect was rejected
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
