1995 (9) TMI 410 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Framing of charge under Section 498(A) IPC against respondents 2 and 3 by the High Court.
- Allegations of harassment, cruelty, and demand of dowry against respondents 2 and 3.
- Concession made by the Deputy Government Advocate regarding the framing of charges.
- Applicability of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.

Analysis:
The case involved a complaint by the appellant against respondents 1, 2, and 3 for demand of dowry, harassment, and cruelty. The police filed a charge sheet against the respondents under Section 498(A) IPC. The Magistrate framed a charge, which was challenged by the accused in a Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the charge. Subsequently, respondents 2 and 3 approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge. The High Court, noting the absence of specific allegations against respondents 2 and 3, allowed the application and quashed the charge against them based on the Deputy Government Advocate's concession that there was no material for framing charges against them.

The appellant contested the High Court's decision, arguing that there were sufficient allegations of harassment, cruelty, and demand of dowry against respondents 2 and 3. The appellant's complaint, supported by statements from family members, detailed instances of physical abuse, demands for money, and denial of food by the in-laws. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the complaint and statements, found that there was indeed substantial material to frame a charge under Section 498(A) against respondents 2 and 3. The Court criticized the High Court for accepting the concession without proper scrutiny and highlighted the responsibility of the Government Advocate in presenting the case diligently.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court erred in quashing the charge against respondents 2 and 3, as there was clear evidence of their involvement in the alleged offenses. The Court also noted that the High Court's decision to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of the Code was unjustified, especially considering the prohibition on revisiting decisions already made by the Sessions Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Judicial Magistrate to proceed with the criminal case against respondents 2 and 3.