SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008(4) Crimes 24 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Singh, J.
Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak
and Ors. —Applicants
versus
State of U.P. and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12113 of 2007
Decided on 1.8.2007

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicants:Mr. V.P. Srivastava and Mr. Amit Kumar, Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manish Tiwary and Mr. Ashwini Kumar Awasthi, A.G.A.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Petition to quash FIR and criminal proceedings in dowry death—Police filed charge-sheet for offences under Section 498A and 304B of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and court took cognizance and summoned petitioners —Cause of death in post-mortem report was coma as a result of brain haemorrhage—I.O. applied for further investigation and submitted report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. drawing conclusions that allegations against applicants could not be substantiated by material collected—Whether proceedings were liable to be quashed? No.

       Held: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and the learned Counsel for OP No. 2 and from the perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of material collected by the IO a prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the applicants, is made out, on which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. There is no illegality or irregularity in the submission of the charge-sheet or the taking cognizance and summoning the applicants to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and so far as the further report of the IO is concerned, it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration and contradiction at the stage of the trial, it shall not effect the order passed by the learned CJM Varanasi. At this stage it is not proper to express view in respect of the post-mortem examination report etc. because it can prejudice the subsequent proceedings. In the present case the post-mortem examination report is highly disputed, it can not be adjudicated by this Court at this stage; it shall be adjudicated at the stage of trial. It appears that the charge-sheet submitted by the IO is not suffering from any illegality and the learned CJM has not committed any error in taking cognizance and summoning the applicants on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2006 and there is no illegality in the prosecution of the applicants. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.11643 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of CJM Varanasi is refused. (Para 7)

       Result: Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak Dr. Shreedhar Pathak and Smt. Sheela Pathak with a prayer to quash the proceedings of State v. Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak and others,1 arising out of charge-sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 264 of 2006 under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Bhelupur district Varanasi pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that in the present case, FIR has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Smt. Padmawati Devi in Case Crime No. 264 of 2006 under Sections 304B, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Bhelupur district Varanasi on 7.6.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 22.4.2005 at unknown time at the house of the applicants. It is alleged that the deceased Dr. Asha Pathak wife of the applicant No.1 Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak was subjected to cruelty to fulfil the demand of dowry, the applicants were harassing the deceased for taking the land of the mother of the deceased, the mother of the deceased is a widow, poison was administered due to which she died on 22.4.2005 or 23.4.2005. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with applicant No.1 Dr. Pawan Kumar Pathak on 21.11.2000. Thereafter the post-mortem examination was prepared on 24.4.2005, the cause of death of coma as a result of the brain haemorrhage, in which the present FIR was registered in pursuance of the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. First the matter was investigated, thereafter the IO came to the conclusion that the applicants have committed the alleged offence and submitted the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2006 in the Court of learned CJM. Varanasi, the charge-sheet was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B IPC and, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Magistrate Varanasi has taken cognizance on 20.12.2006. Thereafter the IO applied for doing further investigation under Section 173(8)Cr.P.C,. the same was allowed by the learned CJM Varanasi on 8.1.2007, the report of further investigation has also been submitted drawing the conclusion that the allegations made against the applicants could not by substantiated by the material collected by the IO but on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2006 the learned C.J.M. taken cognizance and summoned the applicants to face the trial. Therefore, it was requested to the Court concerned that at the stage of trial all the witnesses examined during further investigation and the letter collected by the IO may also be examined as the witness of the prosecution and letter may also be proved. Being aggrieved from the crimina1 prosecution, the applicants have preferred this application.

3. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for O.P No. 2 Smt. Padmwati Devi.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations made against the applicant in respect of the demand of dowry and subjecting the deceased to cruelty or harassment for the purpose of fulfilling the demand of dowry are absolutely false, baseless because there was no demand of dowry and the deceased was never subjected to cruelty or harassment to fulfil the demand of dowry. The death of the deceased is natural; she died due to her illness. The death is not unnatural even according to the post-mortem examination report no ante-mortem injury was found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death was due to coma as a result of brain haemorrhage. The viscera was also not preserved to ascertain any other cause of death as of poison. The post-mortem examination report also shows that the death of the deceased was natural because the deceased was suffering from High Blood Pressure. All of sudden she became unconscious on 23.4.2005. She was shifted to Sri Ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top