Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2050 (RAJ)

Suresh Chandra v. Sushil Kumar

2005-08-04

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) is directed against the order dated 20.07.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Doongarpur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 3/2001, whereby the trial Court discharged the Non-petitioners No. 1 to3 (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) from the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant revision petition are that petitioner-complainant Suresh Chandra lodged an FIR with Police Station, Sagwara, on 210.2000, inter alia, alleging therein that his daughter Meenakshi was married to accused No. 1 Sushil Kumar on 06.05.1996. After six months from the date of marriage, his daughter Meenakshi was harassed in connection with demand of dowry and she was used to be assaulted by her husband Sushil Kumar, father-in-law Hari Shankar and mother-in-law Smt. Madhu Kanta. The accused were pressing and demanding money for establishing a studio. It was further alleged that on 210.2000, he was informed by one Biju that Meenakshi and her daughter Miss Muskan have been burnt, upon which he reached Sagwada Hospital where he found the dead-bodies of his daughter Meenakshi and maternal grand-daughter Miss Muskan. On this report, the police registered the case against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The accused filed a bail application before the trial Court under Section 439 of the Code, which came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.02.2001 holding therein that from the evidence on record, it is prima facie established that after a period of six months from the date of marriage, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. However, by the order impugned, the trial Court held that a demand of money for establishing a business by the accused does not come within the purview of “demand of dowry” and, therefore, the trial Court held that the offence under Section 306, IPC instead of Section 304-B, IPC is prima faciemade out and accordingly the accused were discharged from the offence under Section 304-B, IPC. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the impugned order and the record of the trial Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused/non-petitioners has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant criminal revision petition at the instance of the complainant and relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ramu alias Ram Kumar & Ors. vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 26 , wherein the Honble Apex Court held that it is well settled that revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised, particularly when it was invoked by a private complainant. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, controverting the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the accused, has relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Pandurangan vs. S.S.R. Velusamy & Anr., 2004 SCC 48 Cri., wherein while examining the question as to the maintainability of the revision petition by the complainant, observed as under:- “So far as the first question as to maintainability of the revision petition at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court has suo motu power of revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the instance of an outsider would not make any difference because ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court. Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a third party will not affect such power of the High Court.” 6. In Nadir Khan vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1975 (2) SCC 406 the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court is not required to act in revision merely through a conduit application at the instance of an aggrieved party. In Nadir Khan vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1975 (2) SCC 406 the Honble Supreme Court held that the High Court is not required to act in revision merely through a conduit application at the instance of an aggrieved party. The High Court, as an effective instrument for administration of criminal justice, keeps a constant vigil and wherever it finds that justice has suffered, it take upon itself as its bounden duty to suo motu act where there is flagrant abuse of the law. 7. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Pandurangan (Supra), and Nadir Khan (Supra), the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for accused cannot be accepted and, therefore, rejected. 8. Now, coming to the merit of the case, in the FIR lodged by the petitioner-complainant, it has been clearly stated that after about six months from the date of marriage of his daughter Meenakshi with accused No. 1 Sushil Kumar, she was used to be harassed in connection with demand of dowry. It has been stated that the accused demanded money for establishing a studio and that demand could not be fulfilled by the petitioner-complainant. In the statements of the Petitioner-complainant Suresh Chandra and his witnesses Yash alias Pintu Panchal, Smt. Shanti Devi Panchal, Smt. Manjula Devi Panchal, Ajit Kumar kansara, Bal Krishna Chobisa and Devendra Kumar Panchal, recorded under Section 161 of the Code, almost all these witnesses have categorically stated that for about six months from the date of marriage, deceased Meenakshi was well-treated but thereafter she was harassed in connection with demand of dowry. Not only she was harassed but the accused used to assault her. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the petitioner-complainant also stated that he could not fulfill the demand raised by the accused, upon which the accused stated that they have sold half portion of their house and used to taunt the deceased that her parents had not sent the money and, therefore, they had to sell a part of their house and on this count, they regularly used to harass and quarrel with the deceased. The petitioner-complainant has also stated that in the month of October 2000, again the accused demanded money and thereafter in the Navratri falling in the month of October 2000, his son-in-law, Accused No. 1, came to their house alongwith Meenakshi and again demanded money for establishing a studio. The petitioner-complainant has also stated that in the month of October 2000, again the accused demanded money and thereafter in the Navratri falling in the month of October 2000, his son-in-law, Accused No. 1, came to their house alongwith Meenakshi and again demanded money for establishing a studio. At that time also, Meenakshi informed him that on account of demand of dowry, a day before also, she was assaulted by the accused and thereafter the Accused No.1 left the deceased at her parents house. About four-five days later, again a demand was raised telephonically on 110.2000, whereupon Meenakshi and her mother went to the accused but the accused did not allow Meenakshi to enter the house and demanded Rs. 3 lac for establishing a studio. The accused threatened that if their demand is not fulfilled, Meenakshi would not remain alive in the world. On 210.2000, it appears that Meenakshi, alongwith her minor daughter Muskan, committed suicide by pouring kerosene and liting fire. 9. From the statements of these witnesses prima facie there is evidence that the death of Meenakshi, alongwith her minor daughter Muskan, caused by burns otherwise than under normal circumstances at her in-laws house within seven years, i.e., 4 years and 5 months, from the date of her marriage with Accused No. 1. Almost all the witnesses, noticed above, have stated that before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment and harassment for and in connection with the demand of dowry. The death of the deceased is in close proximity with the demand of dowry and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Even earlier, for more than one occasion, the trial Court itself , on the basis of the material placed before it came to the conclusion that prima facie the offence under Section 304-B, IPC is made out against the accused, yet at the time of framing the charge, the trial Court discharged the accused from the offence under Section 304-B, and instead thereof , framed the charge under Section 306, IPC. 10. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order framing the charge under Section 306, IPC instead of Section 304-B, IPC is set-aside and the trial Court is directed to frame the charge under Section 304-B, IPC instead of Section 306, IPC alongwith the charge under Section 498-A, IPC against the accused. 10. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order framing the charge under Section 306, IPC instead of Section 304-B, IPC is set-aside and the trial Court is directed to frame the charge under Section 304-B, IPC instead of Section 306, IPC alongwith the charge under Section 498-A, IPC against the accused. The stay petition stands disposed of . Let the record of the trial Court be sent immediately.