IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Gautam Chowdhary, J.
Sumit Agarwal and Others – Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. 27577 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 482, 173 (8) – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3,4 – Criminal case – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – Dowry death – Demand of dowry – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Examination of witnesses by police – Facts giving rise to instant application are that a first information report was lodged with regard to incident in Case Crime under Section 498A, 304-B, 323, 506, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station, District Agra with averments that marriage of daughter of opposite party no.2 namely, was solemnised with applicant no.1 in which more than Rs. 1.5 crores were spent, inspite of same, applicants were not happy with marriage and they started making demand of dowry and due to non-fulfilment of same, she was tormented – Held, It goes without saying that Hon'ble Apex Court while passing order for further investigation to be conducted by C.B.I. has not set aside investigation already conducted by police. Significant feature of further investigation is that it does not have effect of wiping out directly or impliedly initial investigation conducted by investigating agency, it is a kind of continuation of previous investigation – It is necessary for Magistrate to have due regard to both reports-initial report which was submitted under Section 173 (2) as well as report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. but where there is a contradictory reports, then Magistrate has to read both reports conjointly and if it reaches a conclusion that accused has not committed offence, Court shall discharge applicants in view of provisions of Section 227 of Code – Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The facts giving rise to the instant application are that a first information report dated 07.08.2020 was lodged with regard to the incident dated 03.08.2020 in Case Crime No. 623 of 2020 under Section 498A, 304-B, 323, 506, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra with the averments that marriage of the daughter of the opposite party no.2 namely, Deepti was solemnised with the applicant no.1 in which more than Rs. 1.5 crores were spent, inspite of the same, the applicants were not happy with the marriage and they started making demand of dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the same, she was tormented. It is also averred that in the year 2017, the applicants assaulted her, due to which she sustained injuries and her medical examination was done in the Government Hospital, Vrindawan. Again on 03.08.2020, the applicant no.2, who is the father in law of deceased telephonically demanded dowry and she was brutally assaulted and to save their skin, the deceased was admitted in Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad, where she died on 06.08.2020. Thereafter inquest report and post mortem was conducted on 06.08.2020 and the doctor opined the cause of death was shock and septicaemia and the matter was entrusted for investigation. The statements of the first informant/opposite party no.2 as well as maid and caretaker of the daughter of the applicant no.1 and deceased were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. In the meantime, the applicant no. 2 filed a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5457 of 2020 (Smt. Anita Agarwal and two others Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereas the applicant nos. 3, 4 and 5 filed a separate anticipatory bail application no. 5460 of 20220 (S.C.Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another) and both the anticipatory bail applications were decided by a common order dated 29.09.2020, whereby the applicant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 were granted anticipatory bail, till conclusion of the trial. Against the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the opposite party no.2 approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.872-873 of 2020 arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) Nos. 4935-4936 (Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal and others) which was allowed vide Judgement and order dated 17.12.2020, setting aside the order dated 29.09.2020, further directing the C.B.I. to conduct further investigation of the case arising out of Case Crime No. 0623 of 2020 registered as Police Station Tajganj, District Agra. Pursuant to the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the C.B.I. registered F.I.R. No. RCO5320215001 at Police Station SCB, Lucknow. The applicant no.1, who happens to be the husband of the deceased, filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39500 of 2022 (Sumit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P.) before this Court, which came up for consideration before this Court on 07.04.2021 and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2021 had rejected the bail prayer of the applicant no.1, however, the applicant no.1 approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 3975 of 2021 (Sumit Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) and the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the fact that three year old daughter of the applicant no.1 suffering from acute bacillary Dysentery granted interim bail to the applicant no.1 for a period of six weeks. Later on, the interim bail of the applicant was confirmed, vide order dated 18.07.2022, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and taken on record. In the meantime, the investigating officer conducted investigation and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicants vide charge sheet no. 705 of 2020 dated 24.10.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 623 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Tajganj, District Agra upon which cognizance/summoning order was passed v
The need for compliance with procedural requirements under Section 202 and Section 210 of Cr.P.C., and the recording of reasons in summoning orders.
The magistrate has the authority to take cognizance of offences based on available evidence, and refusal of medical examination does not negate the possibility of an offence.
Point of Law : Since such a direction takes away the power of the sanctioning authority to take an independent position after applying, its mind upon the material and evidence collected as to whether....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the magistrate's jurisdiction to disagree with the police report, take cognizance, and issue process and summons to the accused, as well as the cou....
The judgment establishes the principle that a fair and just investigation is essential for a fair trial, and the defective investigation cannot be a ground for discharge. It emphasizes the obligation....
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.