2007 (2) TMI 725 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Validity of order u/s 406 IPC, Fair investigation rights of accused, Consideration of evidence by the Court.

Issue 1: Validity of order u/s 406 IPC

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which observed prima facie involvement of the petitioner in criminal breach of trust regarding the istridhan of the complainant. The complainant alleged that her husband remarried during their first marriage and refused to return her istridhan and dowry articles. The Court noted doubts in the prosecution story but found a prima facie case based on the complainant's allegations. The complainant's statements and actions, including escaping from the matrimonial home, formed the basis for the charges. The Court emphasized the need to allow the complainant to prove her allegations before dismissing the prosecution.

Issue 2: Fair investigation rights of accused

The case involved the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner's son, who later remarried another woman. The complainant, along with her family, filed complaints and made allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, and non-return of istridhan. The Court highlighted the importance of a fair investigation, stating that the Investigating Officer must not withhold evidence collected during the investigation. The accused has the right to rely on such evidence to ensure a just trial. In this case, the accused presented supplementary statements of the complainant recorded by the I.O., indicating the separation of the couple and the actions taken by the complainant against her husband. The Court emphasized considering all evidence collected by the I.O. to ensure a fair trial for the accused.

Issue 3: Consideration of evidence by the Court

The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which disregarded the material relied upon by the accused but not made part of the charge-sheet. The Court emphasized that the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer must be considered during the framing of charges. The complainant's actions, statements, and the involvement of her in-laws were analyzed to determine the validity of the charges under Section 406 IPC. The Court highlighted the seriousness of criminal trials and the need to consider all relevant evidence to ensure a just outcome. Ultimately, the Court discharged the petitioner from the charges framed against her under Section 406 IPC, allowing the petition.