Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3040
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mahendra Dayal, J.
Anamika - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Case No. 1556 of 2014
Decided On : 12-05-2014
For the Appellant : Satyendra Kumara Tiwari and Ratnesh Chandra
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar Tripathi, Govt. Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate cannot consider any material other than that available in the case diary when taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and there must be some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance.
Headnote:
498A & 304B IPC - Criminal Case - Section 3 /4 D.P. Act - [498A, 304B IPC, Section 3, 4 D.P. Act] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the scope of taking cognizance based on material available in the case diary, and the limitations on the Magistrate's consideration of additional material. The judgment also highlighted the requirement of some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance, as established by legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased's father filed an FIR alleging cruelty and dowry death against the petitioners. The police submitted a final report, but the Magistrate rejected it and took cognizance under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act based on the protest petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by considering the contents of the protest petition when taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It emphasized the need for some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance.
Issues: The issues included the Magistrate's jurisdiction in taking cognizance based on the protest petition, the consideration of material available in the case diary, and the requirement of some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate cannot consider any material other than that available in the case diary when taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It emphasized the need for some material indicating the guilt of the accused before taking cognizance, as established by legal precedents.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders passed by the lower courts and sent the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for reconsideration of the final report in light of the judgment and the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Mahendra Dayal, J.: -
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.7.2013, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, in Criminal Case No. 2715 of 2013, arising out of Crime No. 464 of 2012, under Sections 498A & 304B IPC and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, relating to P.S. Gauriganj, District Amethi and the judgment and order dated 12.3.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur, in Criminal Revision No. 359/2013, whereby the revision against the summoning order dated 27.7.2013 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that the opposite party No. 2 lodged an FIR on 22.9.2012 with Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi against the petitioners and two others with the averment that his daughter was married to one Alok Kumar Tiwari on 1.5.2007, according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. The opposite party No. 2 had given a Maruti Car at the time of marriage but since the air conditioner was not fitted in the car, the petitioners and other co-accused persons were not satisfied and have been continuously treating the deceased with cruelty.
3. It was further stated in the FIR that on 20.9.2012 the petitioner No. 2 took away the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 and in the night of 21/22.9.2012 at about 12.30 a.m. the co-accused Alok Tiwari informed the opposite party No. 2 on phone that his daughter was serious. On receiving the aforesaid information the opposite party No. 2 reached SGPGI, Munshiganj, District Amethi, where he found his daughter dead. It was also mentioned in the FIR that from the appearance of the dead body it appeared to be a case of dowry death. On the basis of the written FIR the police registered the case at Crime No. 464/2012 and proceeded with the investigation. After the inquest the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem and after the detailed investigation the police submitted final report. From the perusal of the record it reflects that the investigation was conducted by several Circle Officers but ultimately the investigation concluded in the submission of final report.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the submission of final report, the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition on 3.5.2013 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the material on record, passed the order dated 27.7.2013, whereby he rejected the final report and took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and issued process against the petitioners as well as two other accused persons under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. When the petitioners got knowledge of the aforesaid order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, they preferred a criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 359 of 2013, before Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur, vide judgment and order dated 12.3.2014, whereby the revision was dismissed and the order passed by the Magistrate dated 27.7.2013 was confirmed.
The petitioners have challenged both the aforesaid orders before this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was suffering from several ailments since much before her marriage in the year 2007 and this fact was concealed by the opposite party No. 2. However, the petitioners and other co-accused persons took responsibility of the deceased and started her treatment. First of all the deceased was operated upon for the treatment of stones in Gall Bladder in the year 2008 and again in the year 2010 the deceased was found to be suffering from Tuberculosis with Filaria and Eosinophilia.
6. In the night of 21/22.9.2012, the deceased suddenly became serious and developed breathing problem. She was immediately taken to SPGPI, Munshiganj, District Amethi, where she was declared brought dead. The opposite party No. 2 was informed about the death of the deceased b
