Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Rampal Gautam & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State By Mahadevapura Police Station, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 429 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 7968 of 2016) With Criminal Appeal No(S). 430 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 9174 of 2016)
Decided On : 28-01-2025
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173(8) and 386(b) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 193(9) and 427(b)] – Further investigation, de novo or reinvestigation – Crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Direction to conduct further investigation even after filing of charge-sheet and commencement of trial is permissible in law – Prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive at truth and to do real substantial justice – Even de hors any direction from Court, it is open to police to conduct proper investigation notwithstanding fact that Court has already taken cognizance on strength of a police report submitted earlier – However, before directing such investigation, Court or concerned police officer has to apply mind to material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that investigation of such allegations is necessary for just decision of case – In present case, High Court grossly erred and transgressed its jurisdiction, while directing fresh investigation into the matter, totally ignoring fact that application filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was highly belated – Complainant had liberty to set out her entire case/grievances in her examination-in-chief and make a prayer to trial Court that remaining family members who had been left out, should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – There was no justification for High Court to have directed further investigation into the case at a belated stage for the purpose of giving handle to complainant to improve upon her initial version so as to implicate her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who were living separately – Impugned order passed by High Court quashed and set aside – Complainant given liberty to take recourse of suitable remedy for ventilating her grievances which would include filing of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and/or application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as may be desired. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Primarily, prayer of complainant in this application was for a de novo or reinvestigation.
Findings of Court:
Complainant had already testified at pending trial against her husband and in deposition made on 12th April, 2012, no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against appellants – Even in deferred examination-in-chief recorded on 24th March, 2014, absolutely vague allegations were levelled against appellant No. 2.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Criminal) No. 7968 of 2016
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants herein are the father-in-law,1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant No. 1’.] mother-in-law,2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant No. 2’], brother-in-law3[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant No. 3’], and sister-in-law4[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant No. 4’] respectively of respondent No.2- complainant.5[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’]. The marriage between the complainant and Sanjay Gautam, son of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnized on 22nd April, 2004. The spouses started living together in Bangalore from 8 th May, 2004. The complainant filed a complaint against her husband Sanjay Gautam at the Police Station Mahadevpura, Bangalore on 26th December, 2006 alleging inter alia that her husband had gone somewhere on 24th December, 2006 without informing her. He returned home on 26th December, 2006 and started assaulting her by giving blows on face and causing her injuries. In the morning, he also tried to beat their daughter and demanded that the complainant should bring money from her parents. He went away from the house after beating the complainant and threatening her not to move out without his permission.
4. Based on this report, Crime No. 312 of 2006 came to be registered at Police Station, Mahadevpura for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18606[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’], and investigation was commenced. The statement of various witnesses including that of the complainant and her father Shri K.K. Gautam, were recorded by the Investigation Officer. So far as the appellants are concerned, neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the complainant or her father K.K. Gautam, was a whisper made regarding any act of harassment in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise, as against them.
5. Be that as it may, complainant claims to have returned to Delhi where she submitted a typed complaint to the In-charge of Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi7[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CAW Cell’], on 13th March, 2007, wherein, allegations of physical and mental torture were levelled against her husband and the appellants Rampal Gautam(father-inlaw), Rajini Gautam(mother-in-law), Smt. Vandana Sharma(sister-inlaw), and Sameer Gautam(brother-in-law), owing to dowry demand. However, the police officers of the CAW Cell were apprised of the fact that an FIR had already been registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323 and 506, IPC at Police Station, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru and thus, no further action was required to be taken on the complaint filed by the complainant. It would be relevant to mention here that the complainant took no further steps to prosecute the complaint lodged by her at the CAW Cell.
6. In the meantime, the investigation was continued in Crime No. 312 of 2006, and a charge sheet came to be filed against the husband Sanjay Gautam in the Court of 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore8[Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’]. who, vide order dated 21st February, 2011, framed charges against the said accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506, IPC.
7. The prosecution evidence commenced, and the initial examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 12th April, 2012, wherein, she did not utter a single word regarding the role of the accused appellants in harassing or humiliating her. Further, examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 24th March, 2014 wherein, she reiterated her earlier allegations and added that her mother-in-law(appellant No. 2) and sister-in-law(appellant No. 4) had also been harassing her, imputing that if her husband Sanjay had been married to someone else, they would have gotten more dowry.
8. Even in this improved version recorded nearly eight years after the lodging of the FIR, not a whisper of an allegation was made by the com
Further investigation, de novo or reinvestigation – Direction to conduct further investigation even after filing of charge-sheet and commencement of trial is permissible in law – Prime consideration ....
Point of Law : Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a co....
(1) Cruelty and dowry offences – Merely stating certain vague and omnibus allegations without any cogent material evidence to support the same should not become a fillip to jump-start criminal machin....
The court established that allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be substantiated with credible evidence, and repeated allegations without new evidence, especially after an acquittal, can constitu....
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
