Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 506 - SC - Indian LawsDowry - harassment and demand of ₹ 50,000/- and V.C.R. - Commission of Offences u/s 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code ( I.P.C. ) - Application to Quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceedings arising out of First Information Report (FIR) - Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of the complainant - HELD THAT - In the present case, from a plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not make out a prima facie case against the appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Furthermore, it is also noted in the charge-sheet itself that the complainant had refused to take articles back when this offer was made to her by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, the very pre- requisite of entrustment of the property and its misappropriation by the appellants are lacking in the instant case. We have no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out. As regards the applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., We are convinced that the allegation of misbehaviour on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the demand of ₹ 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by the complainant in her subsequent statement, was an after thought and not bona fide. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. Consequently, we allow the appeal partly; quash the charge framed against all the appellants under Section 406 I.P.C. quash the charge framed against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal of appellant No. 3 against framing of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Needless to add that the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order or by us in this judgment.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charge sheet and consequential proceedings under Sections 498A and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence for framing charges under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Charge Sheet and Consequential Proceedings: The appeal arises from the High Court of Delhi's dismissal of a Criminal Revision Petition filed by three accused (father-in-law, sister-in-law, and husband of the complainant). The appellants sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings stemming from FIR No. 155 of 1995, which alleged harassment and dowry demands under Sections 498A, 406/34 IPC. The complainant had initially lodged a complaint on 17.5.1994, which was compromised, but later filed another complaint on 8.11.1994 leading to the FIR. The Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the appellants under Section 406 IPC and appellants No. 1 and 2 under Section 498A IPC. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, upon revision by the State, directed the trial court to frame charges under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against all appellants. This decision was upheld by the High Court, prompting the present appeal. 2. Evaluation of Sufficiency of Evidence for Framing Charges: The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must evaluate the material on record to determine if the facts, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the alleged offense. The court is not required to delve into the probative value of the evidence but must ascertain if there is a ground for presuming the commission of the offense. This principle was supported by precedents from State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, which highlighted that even strong suspicion based on material can justify framing charges. Analysis of Sections 406 and 498A IPC: - Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust): The court noted that for an offense under Section 406 IPC, there must be an entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation. The complainant's allegations did not establish entrustment or misappropriation of Stridhan by the appellants. Furthermore, the charge sheet indicated that the complainant refused to take back her Stridhan when offered, negating the essential elements of the offense. Thus, the court concluded that the charge under Section 406 IPC was not made out against the appellants. - Section 498A IPC (Cruelty): The court examined the complaint dated 8.11.1994 and found no allegations of harassment or unlawful demands by appellants No. 1 and 2. The subsequent statement dated 4.4.1995, alleging demands for Rs. 50,000 and a VCR, was deemed an afterthought. The court reiterated that Section 498A IPC aims to combat dowry harassment but should not be misused for oblique motives. Consequently, the court held that the charge under Section 498A IPC was not substantiated against appellants No. 1 and 2. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed. The Supreme Court quashed the charges under Section 406 IPC against all appellants and under Section 498A IPC against appellants No. 1 and 2. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the trial against appellant No. 3 under Section 498A IPC without being influenced by previous observations.
|