2008(1) Crimes 42 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhan & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1716 of 2007
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2516 of 2007)
Decided on : 14-12-2007

Important Points
It is trite that at stage of framing of charge court is required to evaluate material and documents on record with a view to finding out if facts emerging therefom, taken at their face value, disclosed existence of all Ingredients constituting alleged offence.
At the stage of framing charge, Court has to apply its mind to question whether or not there is any ground for presuming commission of offence by accused.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 406\34 – Registration of Fir against appellant’s father in law, sister in law and husband on a complaint by complainant wife – Revision petition by appellants for quashment of Charge sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR – Dismissed – Appeal there against - Plain reading of complaint filed by complainant showed that facts mentioned in complaint, taken on their face value, not made out a prima facie case against appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated Stridhan of complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C - Neither there was any allegation of entrustment of any kind of property by complainant to appellants nor its misappropriation by them – Again it was evident from Charge-sheet itself that complainant had refused to take articles back when this offer was made to her by Investigating Officer - Very pre-requisite of entrustment of property and its misappropriation by appellants were lacking in instant case - As regards applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., in complaint there was not even a whisper of a wilful conduct of appellants No. 1 and 2 of harassment of complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract provisions of Section 498A read with Explanation thereto - Allegation of misbehaviour on part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and demand of Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by complainant in her subsequent statement, was an after thought and not bona fide - Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with avowed object to combat menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at hands of her husband or his relatives - Charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned - Charge framed against all appellants under Section 406 I.P.C were quashed - Charges framed against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. quashed - Appeal of appellant No. 3 against framing of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was dismissed - Appeal allowed partly. (Paras 18, 19, 20)

       Facts of the Case :

       An Fir was registered against appellant’s father in law, sister in law and husband on a complaint by complainant wife. Revision petition by appellants for quashment of Charge sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR was dismissed.

       Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       The Court held that plain reading of complaint filed by complainant showed that facts mentioned in complaint, taken on their face value, not made out a prima facie case against appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated Stridhan of complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Very pre-requisite of entrustment of property and its misappropriation by appellants were lacking in instant case. Additional Sessions Judge and High Court erred in law in coming to conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out. As regards applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., in complaint there was not even a whisper of a wilful conduct of appellants No. 1 and 2 of harassment of complainant at their hands with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand by them so as to attract provisions of Section 498A read with Explanation thereto. Allegation of misbehaviour on part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and demand of Rs. 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by complainant in her subsequent statement, was an after thought and not bona fide. Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with avowed object to combat menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives. Charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned. Charge framed against all appellants under Section 406 I.P.C were were quashed. Charges framed against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. quashed. Appeal of appellant No. 3 against framing of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. was dismissed. Appeal allowed partly.