2010 (3) TMI 990 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the accused persons deserved to be discharged in terms of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? Held that - Appeal allowed. The High Court ought to have considered before quashing the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. All the offences are triable by Magistrate and quashing of the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code had not resulted into exonerating the accused persons from facing the trial itself. Matter would have been different had the offences under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code been triable as sessions case. In matter like this the High Court ought to have allowed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to above its full play.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against quashing of charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court.

Analysis:
1. The appellant-wife challenged the High Court's order quashing the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The case originated from her written report alleging mistreatment by her husband and his family, including a forced abortion, assault, and subsequent abandonment.

2. The High Court quashed the charge sheet citing insufficient evidence for the offences under Sections 406 and 494. It noted the absence of proof regarding the second marriage's religious rites and essential ceremonies. However, the charge sheet under Section 498A was not quashed.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations in the First Information Report and investigation materials supported charges under Sections 406 and 494. He emphasized the claims of a second marriage and birth of a child, along with mistreatment and expulsion from the matrimonial home.

4. The respondent's counsel contended that the essential elements for offences under Sections 406 and 494 were lacking, justifying the High Court's decision to quash the charge sheet.

5. The Supreme Court analyzed the FIR allegations, concluding that they prima facie established offences under Sections 406 and 494. The Court emphasized that the truthfulness of the allegations should be determined at trial, not at the charge sheet stage.

6. The Court criticized the High Court for prematurely quashing the charge sheet before the Magistrate's assessment under Section 190 of the CrPC. It highlighted that offences under Sections 406, 494, and 498A were triable by a Magistrate and required proper judicial scrutiny.

7. Emphasizing the importance of following the CrPC procedures, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to quash the charge sheet. It clarified that the observations made in the judgment were specific to the appeal and should not influence the trial proceedings.

8. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the charge sheet under Sections 406 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code for further legal proceedings.