9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serving in Indian Army as a Captain. The couple were blessed with a daughter three years after marriage. According to the wife-Smt. Renu Ahlawat, the addition to the family did not make much of a difference in terms of cordiality of her relations with her husband Captain Naveen Ahlawat and Appellants No. 1 and 2 who happen to be her parents in-law as they kept harassing her for dowry ever since the marriage was solemnised. These demands, according to her, continued even after her father had paid a sum of rupees four lakhs to the Appellants. Physical and mental torture of Respondent No. 2-Renu Ahlawat, it is alleged, also did not stop even after the said payment, for the sake of a luxury car as an additional item of dowry. Respondent No. 2-Smt. Renu Ahlawat's further case is that on 10th December, 2006 she was forced into a car by the Appellants who then abandoned her at a deserted place on a lonely road near Sihi village at around 8 p.m. and threatened to kill her if she returned to her matrimonial home. When Jitendar Singh and Brijvir Singh two villagers saw Respondent No. 2-Renu Ahlawat weeping by the side of the road, besides the car they tried to confront the Appellants wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of the investigation. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court the Appellants preferred Criminal Revision No. 1241 of 2010 which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the same did not make out a case for quashing of the proceedings against the Appellants. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said order of dismissal. 8. On behalf of the Appellant it was argued on the authority of the decisions of this Court in Preeti Gupta and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 561, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466, and Rumi Dhar (Smt.) v. State of West Bengal and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 364, that while considering an application for discharge the Court can examine the evidence on record and discharge the accused persons if there is no possibility of the accused being found guilty on the basis of such evidence specially in cases where the accused p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cident in question as also the allegation about dowry harassment were factually correct and made out a clear case for prosecuting the Appellants. Appellant No. 3 had, according to the counsel for the Respondent, married one Aditi on 30th October, 2006. It was also argued that letter referred to by Appellant No. 3 as also letter dated 2nd November, 2006 allegedly written by Respondent No. 2 were forgeries committed by the Appellants. The trial Court was, in the light of the available material, justified in refusing to discharge the accused persons and that the grounds for discharge set up by the Appellants could be examined only after the case had gone through full-fledged trial. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samala and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 5. 10. The case at hand being a warrant case is governed by Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for purposes of determining whether the accused or any one of them deserved to be discharged. Section 239 is as under: 239. When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Support for the above view was drawn by this Court from earlier decisions rendered in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy 1977 Cri.LJ 1125, State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. 1996 Cri.LJ 2448 and State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni 2000 Cri.LJ 3504. In Som Nath's case (supra) the legal position was summed up as under: if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention out forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submissions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police... xxx 23. As a result of aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material... (Emphasis supplied) 15. Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 17. Coming then to the case at hand, the allegations made against the Appellants are specific not only against the husband but also against the parents-in-law of the complainant-wife. Whether or not those allegations are true is a matter which cannot be determined at the stage of framing of charges. Any such determination can take place only at the conclusion of the trial. This may at times put an innocent party, falsely accused of commission of an offence to avoidable harassment but so long as the legal requirement and the settled principles do not permit a discharge the Court would find it difficult to do much, conceding that legal process at times is abused by unscrupulous litigants especially in matrimonial cases where the tendency has been to involve as many members of the family of the opposite party as possible. While such tendency needs to be curbed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
