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

2003 Supreme(Cal) 631

High Court Of Calcutta
Rajendra Nath Sinha
UMA SHANKAR RAIPURIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. R.  845  Of  2003
Decided On : 12/12/2003

Advocates Appeared:
BARIN ROY, MILAN MUKHARJI, R.P.BHATTACHARJI, SANDIPAN GANGULY

If the prosecution at any stage can produce evidence which satisfies the Court that a person should have been made an accused. The Court can take cognizance and try him alongwith other accused even if proceedings against him had been quashed by the High Court earlier.

Headnote:

DOWRY DEATH - INVESTIGATION - FURTHER INVESTIGATION - SECTION 173(8) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 190 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 319 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL ACCUSED - CONDITIONS - POWER OF THE MAGISTRATE.

Fact of the Case:

De facto complainant's daughter, Sabita, committed suicide in her marital home due to dowry harassment. The police submitted a charge sheet against her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and husband. The de facto complainant filed a petition before the SDJM, alleging that the investigation was not properly conducted and that two other family members, Anju Devi and Suman Kumari, should be included as accused. The SDJM rejected the petition, holding that there was no necessity for further investigation and that if it was found that other accused were to be tried, section 319 of the CrPC could be invoked.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the SDJM was correct in rejecting the petition for further investigation. The court noted that the FIR did not mention Anju Devi and Suman Kumari, and that the charge sheet did not contain their names either. The court also noted that the learned Magistrate considered the submissions made by the petitioner and rightly pointed out that if evidences go to show about their complicity and/or participation in torturing Sabita section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can take care of.

Issues: Whether the SDJM was correct in rejecting the petition for further investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the learned Magistrate considered the submissions made by the petitioner and rightly pointed out that if evidences go to show about their complicity and/or participation in torturing Sabita section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can take care of.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J.

( 1 ) 1. This is to consider an application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Pandabeswar P. S. Case No. 36 of 2002 dated 4th May, 2002 under section 498a/304b I. P. C. and with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (G. R. Case No. 438 of 2002 ). Here in this instant petition the de facto complainant, the bereaved father of one Sabita who committed suicide in the marital home on 4. 05. 02.

( 2 ) IN short the petition is that the de facto complainant Uma Sankar Rajpuria got his daughter married with one Ashok Agarwal, son of late Chabil Das agarwal after defraying considerable expenses of marriage to the extent of Rs. 51,000/- in cash, gold ornaments, colour TV, air cooler and utensils of various kinds.

( 3 ) AFTER marriage Sabita was taken to matrimonial home but her mother-in-law Chatu Devi Agarwal, the elder brother of her husband Paresh Agarwal and her husband Ashok began to torture her demanding more money. A sum of rs. 18,000/- was paid by him. Again on 15. 03. 02 Sabita informed her father that her husband Ashok has decided to purchase a house at Raniganj and demanding Rs. 3 lakhs. But he could not meet the same immediately. When on 4. 5. 02 he tried to contact over telephone with his daughter at about 10 a. m. Ashok Agarwal, his son-in-law, informed that Sabita has committed suicide. He used to converse with his daughter Sabita over telephone.

( 4 ) UMA Sankar lodged a complaint with the Pandabeswar Police Station and on the basis of the same the aforesaid P. S. case was started against the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband.

( 5 ) IT has further been stated that after investigation charge-sheet No. 55/02 dated 15. 08. 02 under the aforesaid sections was submitted but the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 namely Anju Devi, wife of Paresh Agarwal and Suman kumari, daughter of late Chabil Das Agarwal i. e. , the unmarried sisters of the husband respectively were not sent up for trial.

( 6 ) THE de facto petitioner on coming to know about the outcome of investigation filed an application before the learned SDJM; Durgapur praying for further investigation alleging neglect in conducting the proper investigation and also for non-inclusion of the aforesaid two opposite parties as an accused.

( 7 ) THE petition filed by the learned SDJM, Durgapur by the de facto complainant is one under section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. praying for further investigation on the facts which may be summarised as follows. He has narrated the plight of his daughter Sabita who was married to Ashok Agarwal on 11. 12. 01. Considerable amount in cash and in kind were given as dowry. After marriage smt. Chatu Devi Agarwal, elder brother of Ashok being the relative of the husband subjected her to torture both physically and mentally. Rs. 18 thousand was paid by him within 15 days of marriage. On 15. 3. 02 the deceased came to her father's place informing a demand of Rs. 3 lacs for purchase of a house by her husband. As he expressed his inability on 1. 5. 02 Sabita again informed him about the demand and to make payment within 2 days but on 4. 5. 02 he was informed that Sabita committed suicide. He has further stated in the petition that the case was investigated by S. I. Bireswar Bhattacharjee and S. I. Ramesh chandra Biswas. Sri Biswas, however, did not bring out the truth but attempted to bloster up a defence story. Then it has been also stated narrating about some of the witness's statement under section 161 about the dowry demands. He has stressed about I. Os. non-inclusion of Smt. Anju Devi, i. e, the wife of Paresh agarwal and praying for her discharge from the case due to no sufficient evidence against her. He has also made a grievance against the I. O. Ramesh Chandra biswas who had deliberately released one, Anju Devi wife of Paresh Agarwal and Suman Kumari Devi daughter of late Chabil Das Agarwal, sister of the accused Ashok husband of the deceased.





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top