1999 Supreme(Raj) 1303
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Bansi Lal & anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & anr. - Respondent
S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1231 of 1998.
Decided On : 7-08-1999
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Narendra Jain, Advocate.
The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to protect a party from being treated unjustly by the process of the court.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - SECTION 397(3) - SECTION 190 - SECTION 319 - SECTION 173(2) - SECTION 200 - SECTION 202 - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - REVISION - SUMMONING OF ADDITIONAL ACCUSED - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - INJUSTICE - EVIDENCE - POLICE REPORT - COMPROMISE - DOWRY DEMAND - DOMESTIC DISPUTE - HUSBAND AND WIFE - MAINTENANCE - SECTION 498A - SECTION 406 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF REVISION PETITION - JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT - SECOND REVISION - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - BAR OF SECTION 397(3) CR.P.C. - SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF REVISION PETITION - JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT - SECOND REVISION - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION - BAR OF SECTION 397(3) CR.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were summoned as additional accused in a case under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the application of the complainant wife. The police had submitted a negative report against the petitioners, but the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offenses and summoned the husband as an accused. The petitioners challenged the Magistrate's order before the Additional Sessions Judge, who partly accepted the application in respect of the father of the husband but dismissed the same in so far as it related to the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had erred in summoning the petitioners as additional accused in the case. The Court found that there was no prima facie evidence showing complicity of the petitioners in the commission of any offense, and that the Magistrate had not collected any evidence to controvert the evidence collected by the police. The Court also found that the Magistrate had abused the process of the court by summoning the petitioners as accused in the case, and that this had caused great injustice to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in summoning the petitioners as additional accused in the case? 2. Whether the Magistrate abused the process of the court by summoning the petitioners as accused in the case? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Magistrate erred in summoning the petitioners as additional accused in the case because there was no prima facie evidence showing complicity of the petitioners in the commission of any offense, and because the Magistrate had not collected any evidence to controvert the evidence collected by the police. 2. The Magistrate abused the process of the court by summoning the petitioners as accused in the case, because the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offenses and summoned the husband as an accused, and because the Magistrate had twice rejected the applications under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved against the petitioners by the respondent. 3. The petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the Magistrate had abused the process of the court by summoning the petitioners as accused in the case, and because this had caused great injustice to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders of the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, and cancelled and dropped the proceedings against the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
1. :- This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.9.1998 whereby the learned Add]. Sessions judge dismissed revision application of the petitioners against Magistrate's order dated 5.11.97 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498A and 406 Indian Penal Code against them and two others.
2. Respondent Smt. Rekha Wadhwani was married to Dr. Mohan Lal co-accused on 8.5.94. Soon after the marriage differences arose between them, allegedly for demand for more dowry by the husband and his relatives as contended by the said Respondent or due to highly volatile temperament of the respondent, as contended by the petitioners. Dr. Mohan Lal filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.10.95 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. The wife answered the petition by filing FIR No. 108/95 on 27.11.95 against her husband and his relatives, namely Sh. Veerumal, the father, Smt. Rami (Petitioner No.2), the mother, Bansi Lal (Petitioner No.1), the brother, and Smt. Janki (Petitioner No.3), the sister. After investigation of the case the police submitted their report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 6.1.96 against husband only.
3. On a notice having been given by the learned Magistrate to the wife (Smt. Rekha respondent) before accepting the negative report submitted in favour of the petitioners and Sh. Veerumal (father), the respondent-wife put in appearance through her counsel on 8.3.96 and prayed for time to file a protest petition and the case was adjourned to 6.4.96. The case was adjourned on 6.4.96 and thereafter on 4.5.96 to enable the wife to file the protest petition. On 17.5.96 the parties informed the Magistrate that they wanted to enter into a compromise with regard to their dispute. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 21.8.96 and 25.10.96 for the said purpose. On the next date of hearing i.e. 20.12.96 the wife respondent filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to summon the present petitioners and Sh. Veerumal (father) as additional accused in the case. The learned Magistrate heard the parties on such application and dismissed the same vide order dated 22.2.97.
4. It may be pointed out here that in the divorce petition filed by the husband, in consequence of the efforts made by the learned Family Judge the parties had come to a compromise and, therefore, the divorce petition had already been dismissed on 30.1.97.
5. Any way, after the dismissal of wife's application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on 22.2.97 the criminal case was adjourned on 26.4.97 and 10.6.97 for enabling the parties to file compromise. However, on 26.7.97 the wife respondent filed yet another application under section 319 Cr.P.C. making the same request as was made by her in her earlier application. But on the next date of hearing when the Magistrate required the parties to address him on The said application, the said application was not pressed. Instead, another application under section 190 Cr.P.C. was filed for the same relief. The learned Magistrate heard the parties on such application and vide his order dated 5.11.97 accepted the same and summoned the present petitioners and Sh. Veerumal, as accused in the case for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
6. The petitioners and Sh. Veerumal challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by filing revision application under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. (Cr. Rev. Application No. 22/98). The learned Add]. Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, partly accepted the application in respect of Sh. Veerumal (father) but dismissed the same in so far that related to the present petitioners.
7. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the lower court. Both the parties appeared in person also before me and in order to satisfy myself as to whether any injustice has been caused to the petitioners by the impugned order or was likely to be caused to the
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
