Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Ahok Kr. Todi & Others - Petitioners
Versus
C.B.I. & Others - Respondents
C.R.R. Nos. 1396, 1397, 1494, 1499, 1549, 1573 & 3512 of 2011
Decided On : 12-06-2017
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 190(1)(B) - COGNIZANCE - SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET - SECTION 197 - SANCTION - SECTION 227 - DISCHARGE - SECTION 228 - FRAMING OF CHARGES - SECTION 306 - ABETMENT TO COMMIT SUICIDE - SECTION 401/482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDING - SUICIDE - FACTORS.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a Muslim boy, married a Hindu girl under the Special Marriage Act. The girl's parents and relatives, who were wealthy and influential, opposed the marriage and tried to dissolve it through persuasion, bribery, and threats. They also sought the help of high-ranking police officials, who threatened the victim with arrest. The victim and his wife were eventually separated, and the victim committed suicide. The CBI filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons, including the police officials, under Sections 120B, 506, and 306 of the IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the police officials, holding that their acts did not come within the purview of their official duties. The State Government granted sanction for prosecution of the police officials under Sections 120B and 506 IPC but not under Section 306 IPC. The accused persons filed revision petitions challenging the cognizance taken by the Magistrate and the framing of charges against them.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet, even though the initial charge-sheet did not mention those offences. The Court also held that the Magistrate was not bound to take cognizance only of the offences for which sanction had been granted by the State Government. The Court further held that the Magistrate was justified in framing charges against the accused persons, as there was sufficient material on record to presume that they had committed the offences. The Court rejected the contention that the police officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties when they threatened the victim and his wife, and held that their acts amounted to abetment of suicide. The Court also held that the High Court could not quash the proceedings under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C., as there was no abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet, even though the initial charge-sheet did not mention those offences? 2. Whether the Magistrate was bound to take cognizance only of the offences for which sanction had been granted by the State Government? 3. Whether the Magistrate was justified in framing charges against the accused persons? 4. Whether the police officials were acting in the discharge of their official duties when they threatened the victim and his wife? 5. Whether the acts of the police officials amounted to abetment of suicide? 6. Whether the High Court could quash the proceedings under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the supplementary charge-sheet, even though the initial charge-sheet did not mention those offences. 2. The Magistrate is not bound to take cognizance only of the offences for which sanction has been granted by the State Government. 3. The Magistrate is justified in framing charges against the accused persons if there is sufficient material on record to presume that they have committed the offences. 4. The police officials were not acting in the discharge of their official duties when they threatened the victim and his wife. 5. The acts of the police officials amounted to abetment of suicide. 6. The High Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 401/482 Cr.P.C. unless there is abuse of process of the Court or miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by the accused persons and upheld the cognizance taken by the Magistrate and the framing of charges against them.
1. All these revisional applications arose from the Order No. 57 dated 21.04.2011 in S.C. 103 of 2008 and Order No. 1 dated 21.04.2011 in S.T. 2 (11) passed by the learned Court below. By the impugned orders, the learned Court below dismissed, the applications under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. of the present petitioners of C.R.R. 1396 of 2011 (Ashok Todi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1397 of 2011 (Pradip Todi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1549 of 2011 (Anil Saraogi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1573 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1499 of 2011 (S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu vs. CBI), C.R.R. 3512 of 2011 (Sukanti Chakraborty, Krisnendu Das vs. CBI), and thereafter framed charges under Sections 306/120B/506 of I.P.C. against Ashok Todi, Pradip Todi, S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu and under Sections 506/120B I.P.C. against Ajay Kumar, Sukanti Chakraborty and Krisnendu Das. The C.B.I as well as Rukbanur Rahaman also challenged the impugned order stating inter alia that the police officials also ought to have been charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. By the consent of the parties, all these revisional applications be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. By way of prefatory observations, I may be permitted to mention that even nearly after 70 years of our independence a few narrow-minded people have some superstitious beliefs. In spite of significant developments in modern science and technology, we find a few conservative people still believe that marriage must be within the same religion and of same financial status. Such baseless and unfounded attitude sometimes may lead to family disasters. The allegation, if proved, may be a glaring example of that. The young couple dreamt of a rosy life but within a week that became a jinxed matrimony. When the victim decided to take the help of police officials, the protectors allegedly took the role of predators. When he wanted to take the help of law enforcing agency, that agency turned a deaf ear to. As a result, the said law enforcing agency became a teasing mirage to the victim.
3. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the respective parties, let me unbox the prosecution case which contains the statements of about 116 charge-sheeted witnesses and many documents, most of which are of foreignsic importance.
4. The prosecution case in a capsulated form is such that the victim was working in Arena Multimedia and Priyanka was a student of that Arena Multimedia. The principal accused Ashok Todi is the owner of a well-known company (‘Lux Cozy’). In course of working at Arena Multimedia, the victim developed an intimacy with Priyanka, which ultimately led them to marry each other under Special Marriage Act. Initially the victim did not disclose about his marriage with Priyanka to his relatives. On 26th August, 2007 for the first time he disclosed his elder brother that he had married Priyanka. On 30.08.2007 the victim told his uncles, who advised him to intimate about the marriage to the parents of Priyanka. On 31.08.2007 the victim informed Commissioner of Police, Calcutta regarding their marriage and also sought for police protection. He has also informed the same to the S.P. North 24 Parganas, S.P. South 24 Parganas, D.C. South. He has also delivered a letter to local police station (Karaya) stating that he has married Priyanka lawfully. After getting the news of such marriage, father and uncles of Priyanka (Ashok Todi, Pradip Todi and Anil Saraogi) reached their house and they were talking with his uncles. Subsequently, the victim and Priyanka came to the house of the victim and seeing them Ashok Todi became very angry. Priyanka protested stating that she had married him. Ashok Todi and Pradip Todi did not like to accept the marriage and asked Priyanka to go back to her father’s place at Salt Lake, which Priyanka had refused. Despite several requests when the couple did not accede to their request, Ashok Todi wanted to have a discussion with Priyanka exclusively. Ashok Todi took the Priyanka in an adjoining room, where both Priyank
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
