SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Dr. Kalpana – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6907 of 2015)
Decided On : 05-07-2017
319 Cr.P.C. - Summoning of Accused - Indian Penal Code(IPC) - Dowry Prohibition Act - [Sections 498A/304B of IPC, Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the death of Sonam Soharawat and the subsequent filing of a complaint alleging murder by her in-laws. The appellant, Kalpana, was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the complaint, despite lack of evidence against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence against the appellant, as even the complainant's statement did not implicate her. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order summoning the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. based on the complaint alleging murder by the in-laws of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of evidence against the appellant, as well as the complainant's statement that did not implicate her, to set aside the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order summoning the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was set aside.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned senior counsel appearing for the State and the counsel for the complainant.
3. The brief facts involved in the case are that the marriage between Sonam Soharawat alias Pooja and Gaurav was solemnised on 20.10.2010 at Gurgaon. At that time Gaurav was living with other family members. However, after the marriage, he shifted to Noida with his wife Sonam. On 07.09.2011, information was received that Sonam is admitted in Vinayak Hospital in an injured condition and succumbed to those injuries at about 3 p.m. on the said day. Ashok Kumar, father of Sonam, lodged written complaint with Police Station Sector-58, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, on the said day, alleging that Sonam's in-laws have murdered her. In that complaint, he implicated Sonam's husband Gaurav as well as his father, mother and sister Kalpana (the appellant herein) and also brother Anurag. On the basis of the said complaint FIR No. 922 of 2011 has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and also under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 882 of 2011, arising out of the said FIR. On the basis of the said charge sheet in which the police had implicated only Gaurav, husband of the deceased, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed orders dated 10.07.2015 summoning all the accused persons. On receiving these summons, the appellant challenged the said order by filing Criminal Revision Petition in the High Court along with his brother Anurag. This petition has been dismissed by the High Court. After the statements of the complainant-Ashok Kumar as PW-1 and of Vinod Kumar as PW-2 were recorded, the complainant filed an application under section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for summoning the appellant as well as her father, mother and brother. This application was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2013. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In the said revision petition, ex-parte orders dated 23.03.2015 were passed. Along with the revision petition of the complainant, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and remitted the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, 1973 after keeping in mind the principles laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (3) SCC 92.
4. As per the appellant, inadvertently the counsel for the appellant could not appear on the date fixed. Be that as it may, after deriving the knowledge of the aforesaid ex-parte order, the appellant moved application for recall of the order.
5. While this application was still pending, the Trial Court passed fresh orders dated 10.07.2015 thereby allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 Thereafter recall application moved by the appellant was also dismissed by the High Court on 20.07.2015. Challenging the order of the Trial Court whereby the appellant is summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 the appellant as well as her brother Anurag filed revision petition which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2015.
6. The case set up by the appellant while opposing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 was that she is a doctor by profession having M.B.B.S., M.D.(Dermatologist) to her credit. She has been working with prestigious hospital in the State of U.P. for several years. She was appointed as Assistant Professor, Dermatologist at Smt. Kashibai Navle Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra on 20.11.2010. At the time of incident she was working in the Department of Dermatologist at Smt. Kashibai Navle Medical College and General Hospital, Pune, Maharas
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.