HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Safi Mohammed & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) Nos. 6670 and 6775/2019
Decided On : 25-08-2022
Criminal Misc. Petitions - Framing of Charges - Section 498A, 323 IPC - [Section 498A, 323, 406, 420, 328, 307, 313, 193, 120B of IPC] - The court found that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out. The facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. The present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged physical and mental cruelty, dowry demands, and harassment by the petitioners. The police filed a Final Report against one of the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC. The learned Trial Court framed charges against multiple petitioners under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. The petitioners filed a criminal revision before the learned Session Court against the order, which was dismissed and upheld by the learned ADJ No. 2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out. The facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of physical and mental cruelty, dowry demands, and harassment by the petitioners, and the framing of charges under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out. The facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed.
Final Decision: The present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
6670/2019:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed, that this petition of the petitioner may very kindly be allowed, and Order Dated 27.11. 2019 Passed By Learned ADJ No. 2 Hanumangarh, In Criminal Revision No. 188/2019, And Order Dated 26.08.2019 Passed By Learned Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 197/2018 (C.I.S. No. 2876/2018), may be quashed and set aside".
6775/2019:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional District & Session Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in criminal revision case No. 188/2019 where by the affirmed that order dated 26.8.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 197/2018 of framing charges against the petitioners for offence u/s. 498A & 323 IPC may kindly be set aside".
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that on 19.01.2018 complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted a report before the Mahila Thana Hanumangarh, against the petitioners and others. It was alleged her marriage with the petitioner No. 3-Akeel was solemnized on 16.08.2009, and that her parents gave sufficient dowry to petitioners. It was further alleged that the petitioners were not happy with the dowry articles given by her parents at the time of marriage. On demand of dowry the complainant/respondent No. 2 is subjected to the physical and mental cruelty by the petitioners. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further alleged that petitioner No. 2-Haneefa during her (complainant's) pregnancy pressurized her to perform grinding the wheat, due which her tube was damaged and her pregnancy was terminated.
2.1. However, she blessed with a daughter Heena on 16.11.2011 and her parents gifted some gold and cash amount to the petitioners, but the petitioners not happy with the gift items and birth of the child. The complainant gave birth to another daughter Jasmin in year of 2014. The petitioner No. 3 - Akeel however, performed re-marriage with one Mafia. She further stated that the petitioners continued to demand the dowry and was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the petitioners.
3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No. 22/2018 was registered at Mahila Thana Hanumangarh, for the offences under Section 498A, 406, 323, 420, 328, 307, 313, 193 and 120B of IPC. The police after investigation filed Final Report only against the petitioner No. 3 for the offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC.
4. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2018 allowed the application and took cognizance against Akeel Mohammed, Safi Mohammed, Haneefa Biwi, Wali Mohammed, and Seema under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 framed the charge against the Akeel Mohammed, Safi Mohammed, Haneefa Biwi, Wali Mohammed, and Seema under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC.
4.1. The petitioners preferred a criminal revision before learned Session Court against the order dated 26.08.2019, and the learned ADJ No. 2 vide order dated 27.11.2019 dismissed the petition and upheld the learned Trial Court's order dated 26.08.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009 and FIR was lodged nine years thereafter, for which no explanation was given by the complainant/respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(a) Kamlesh Karla v. Shilpika Karla & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020, Decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.04.2020);
(b) Komal Narang &
Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 680
State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out.
- Expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to m....
Subsequent events, such as divorce and remarriage, can be considered in determining the abuse of process of law and the justification for quashing criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed as a counter-blast, after the initiation of divorce proceedings, and lacking prior complaints or corroboration, may be consi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific details and corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition....
Vague and general allegations against in-laws do not justify prosecution under Section 498-A; specific acts of cruelty or dowry demands must be clearly attributed to each accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and material particulars to uphold charges under sections 498A/406/34 IPC, and the need to weigh evidence ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.