Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Cal) 956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Nirmal Kumar Agarwal And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondent
C.R.R No. 3094 of 2011
Decided On : 08-03-2022

Advocates appeared:
Sekhar Kumar Basu, Advocate, Soubhik Mitter, Advocate, Rajnandini Das, Advocate, Arushi Rathore, Advocate, Karan Bapuli, Advocate, Binoy Panda, Advocate, Puspita Saha, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must independently consider the materials in the case diary and arrive at a satisfaction that the ingredients of the offence exist to constitute a prima facie case against the accused persons at the stage of framing charge.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Revisional Application - Indian Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act - 498a/326/306/511/341, 3/4 - The court discussed the framing of charges against the petitioners under section 498a read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition act read with section 34 of the IPC. The court set aside the charge framed and directed the trial court to frame the charge afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment in C.R.R. No. 2260 of 2007.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the death of Manu, with allegations of dowry harassment and physical abuse against the petitioners. The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 24.08.2011, contending that it was passed without application of judicial mind and in a casual manner.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court did not consider the materials on record independently at the time of framing charge afresh, and had followed the directions of the higher court without satisfying the essential conditions. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to frame the charge afresh, considering the observations made in the previous judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the proper framing of charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act, and whether the trial court had applied judicial mind and considered the materials on record independently.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court must independently consider the materials in the case diary and arrive at a satisfaction that the ingredients of the offence exist to constitute a prima facie case against the accused persons. The court also highlighted the distinction between the language of section 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the court's opinion at the stage of framing charge is tentative.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The charge framed was also set aside with a direction for the trial court to frame the charge afresh, considering the observations in the previous judgment. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of communication of the order.

JUDGMENT

ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application has been filed by the petitioners under section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing/ setting aside of order dated 24.08.2011 passed by Learned additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Darjeeling in sessions Case No. 53 of 2006 arising out of Darjeeling Sadar Police Station Case No. 93 of 2005 dated 22.01.2005 under section 498a/326/306/511/341 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 and Dowry Prohibition act.

2. In the brief, fact of the case giving rise to the revisional application is that over the death of Manu on 22.11.2005. Her father, opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint before the officer-in-charge, Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling alleging that on 7th March, 2002 Manu was marriage to petitioner no. 1 and at the time of marriage gold and silver ornaments, cash, clothes, furniture and other items had been given to the deceased at dowry. after six to seven months from the marriage, opposite party no. 2 received complains from the matrimonial family of Manu regarding insufficiency of dowry articles. The opposite party no. 2 tried to resolve the matter with the petitioners. Subsequently, Manu was subjected to physical and mental torture and petitioner no. 2 declared that she would get petitioner no. 1 remarried. Two days prior to Diwali that year, petitioner no. 1 called Manu's father and asked him to take back his daughter but opposite party no. 2 tried to explain the situation to petitioner no. 1.

3. On 20.11.2005, Manu informed the opposite party no. 2 that a quarrel was going on in the matrimonial family and she was apprehending that anything might happen to her. The opposite party No. 2 advised Manu to adjust herself and told her that he would come and hold talks with the matrimonial family members. However, on 20.11.2005 at 12:30 P.M the petitioner no. 1 called Manu's father and informed that Manu had suffered burn injuries. Opposite party no. 2 rushed from Raxaul and reached Darjeeling at 9:30 a.M on 21.11.2005. He found Manu had suffered 90-95% burn injuries on her person. The opposite party no. 2 alleged that after being assaulted Manu had been burnt by the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased Sadar Police Station Case No. 93 of 2005 dated 22.01.2005 was registered under section 498a/326/306/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act.

4. after completion of investigation police submitted Charge Sheet No. 25 of 2006 under section 498a/326/306/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition act against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Learned Sessions Judge from where it was transferred to the Court of Learned additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Darjeeling for trial and disposal. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 53 of 2006.

5. The petitioners herein have contended that the charge sheet and the accompanying documents do not make out any offence as alleged against the petitioners, accordingly they filed an application for their discharge. Learned Judge, after hearing the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner passed an order on 18.05.2007 rejecting the prayer for discharge of petitioners and further fixed 19.05.2007 as the next date for appearance and framing of charge.

6. On 19.05.2007 Learned additional Sessions Judge, 3rd court, Darjeeling after considering the materials as placed on record by the prosecution was satisfied to frame charge against the petitioners under section 498a read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition act read with section 34 of the IPC. The petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial. The case was thereafter fixed for trial from 02.07.2007 to 04.07.2007.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document