9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of application for discharge u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations of dowry harassment and physical and mental torture. 3. Ex parte decree of divorce obtained by fraudulent means. 4. Legal principles governing discharge of accused in a warrant case. Summary: 1. Dismissal of application for discharge u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The appeal challenges the High Court's judgment affirming the Additional Judicial Magistrate's dismissal of the Appellants' application for discharge u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate held that the grounds for discharge could only be considered after evidence was adduced, and minor contradictions in depositions did not warrant discharge. 2. Allegations of dowry harassment and physical and mental torture: Respondent No. 2 alleged continuous harassment for dowry by her husband (Appellant No. 3) and his parents (Appellants No. 1 and 2), even after a payment of four lakhs. She claimed physical and mental torture persisted, including an incident on 10th December 2006, where she was abandoned on a deserted road and threatened with death if she returned to her matrimonial home. 3. Ex parte decree of divorce obtained by fraudulent means: During the investigation, Respondent No. 2 discovered that Appellant No. 3 had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce fraudulently. She successfully had the decree set aside. The Appellants argued that the delay in filing the complaint and contradictions in witness statements should lead to discharge, but the trial court found these arguments insufficient for discharge at this stage. 4. Legal principles governing discharge of accused in a warrant case: The Supreme Court reiterated that u/s 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, discharge can only be directed if the charge is groundless. The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the material on record should be accepted as true, and even strong suspicion is sufficient to justify framing charges. The Court cited several precedents, including *Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi*, and *Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal*, to support this view. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the allegations against the Appellants were specific and could not be ignored at the stage of framing charges. The Court directed that Appellants No. 1 and 2 be exempted from personal appearance before the trial court, provided they are duly represented by counsel and cooperate with the trial proceedings.
|
