Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 119
2010 (2) N.C.C. 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Prasad
Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2010
K. NEELAVENI – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 22.03.2010
For the Respondents:Mr. R. Shunmugarundaram, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocates
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482 — Jurisdiction of High Court — Scope — Quashing of chargesheet, before taking cognizance by Magistrate — Allegations made in FIR at such stage — Consideration of — Truthfulness or other wise of allegations — Not fit to be gone into at such stage as it is always a matter of trial — When a report is submitted to the Magistrate, he is required to be prima facie satisfied that the facts disclosed therein constituted an offence — Magistrate bound by the conclusion of the investigating agency in the charge sheet — It is open to him, after exercise of judicial discretion, to take the view that the facts disclosed in the report do not constitute any offence for taking cognizance — Quashing of the chargesheet U/Ss 406 and 494 of I.P.C at this stage in exercise of the powers U/S 482 of Criminal Code — Absolutely uncalled for. (Paras 8, 10 to 12)
n.M izfd;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482 & mPp U;k;ky; dk dk;Z{ks= ,oa mldk foLrkj & n.Mkf/kdkjh }kjk laKku fy;s tkus ls iwoZ vkjksi i= dks [kf.Mr fd;k tkuk ,oa bl Lrj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk o mudh lPpkbZ vFkok vU; izdkj ds vkjksiksa dks tkuuk & bl Lrj ij ,slk fd;k tkuk lgh ugah gS D;ksafd ges'kk ;g lquokbZ@fopkj.k dk fo"k; gS & tc dksbZ fjiksVZ n.Mkf/kdkjh dks izLrqr dh tkrh gS rks mldk nkf;Ro gS fd izFke n`"V;k ml ls bl ckr ds fy, larq"V gks tk, fd mlesa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ vijk/k curk gS & n.Mkf/kdkjh vkjksi i= esa foospuk vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s fu"d"kks± ls ck/; gksrk gS & U;kf;d foosd dk iz;ksx djus ds mijkUr og fjiksVZ esa fn;s x;s rF;ksa ds vkèkkj ij dksbZ vijk/k u cuus ds lEcU/k esa laKku ysus gsrq Lora= gS & vr% /kkjk 406 vkSj 494 vk ih lh ds vUrxZr bl Lrj ij /kkjk 482 lhvkj ih lh ds vUrxZr 'kfDr iz;ksx djrs gq, vkjksi i= dks [kf.Mr fd;k tkuk iw.kZr;k vuko';d FkkA ¼izLrj 8] 10 ls 12½
C.K. Prasad, J. — Leave granted.
1. The appellant-wife aggrieved by the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P. No. 23473 of 2008, whereby it had quashed the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred this appeal seeking special leave to appeal.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-wife K. Neelaveni on 07.11.2002 gave a written report to the Inspector of Selaiyur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that her marriage was performed with accused respondent No. 2 – S.K. Siva Kumar on 3rd September, 1997 in which gold ornaments and various other household articles were given by her parents. She had further alleged that her husband used to abuse her and her family members under influence of alcohol and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. According to the First Information Report, when she was pregnant, on scan it was found that she was carrying a female foetus, her husband and his family members started harassing her and insisted for aborting the child. On her refusal to give consent for abortion according to the informant on 18.1.1998, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law assaulted her and had driven her out from the matrimonial home and the husband left her on way to her parents house. She gave birth to a girl child on 25.6.1998.
3. Informant in the written report had further alleged that her husband had married another lady namely, Bharathi without her consent with the help and in the presence of other accused persons. She had further alleged that a female child was born to them in the wedlock.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a case under Sections 406, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. Police after usual investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 406, 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Accused persons namely respondent Nos. 2 to 13 filed petition before the High Court for quashing the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, contending that in the absence of any material to show that the second marriage was duly performed with religious rites and essential ceremonies” charge sheet under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is fit to be quashed. It was, further, contended that allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials collected during the course of investigation do not fulfill the ingredients of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Aforesaid submissions found favour with the High Court and it had quashed the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. While doing so, the High Court observed as follows:-
“As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a careful reading of the complaint of the second respondent, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet do not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Section 494 and 406 IPC, yet the first respondent has chosen to file the charge for the said offences. Therefore, this court is constrained to quash the charge sheet as against the petitioners as far as the offences under Sections 406 and 494 IPC alone are concerned. It is made clear that the charge sheet as against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC is not quashed.”
6. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court that the charge sheet did not reveal the ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 494 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code is erroneous. He draws our attention to the First Information Report and submits that there is an allegation of the second marriage and even birth to a child and hence it cannot be said that ingredients constituting offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code do not e
