Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1156 (SC)

Pramod Kumar Agarwal v. State of Orissa

2015-09-03

MADAN B.LOKUR, S.A.BOBDE

body2015
ORDER : This criminal appeal arises out of an order dated 11.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Misc. No. 1965 of 2009. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings against the appellants (other than appellant No. 2) on the basis of a private complaint made by respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/302/304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC") read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings against appellant No.2 were for offences punishable under Sections 302/304-B/201/34 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case indicate that appellant No.1 was married to a young lady called Babita Agarwal on 05.03.2003. They had a child on 25.02.2004. All of them are ordinarily residents of Delhi. On or about 30.04.2009, appellant No.1 had gone to Orissa to be with his wife who was with her parents and to bring her back to Delhi. On their return journey on 04.05.2009, they met with a serious accident at night with an Army truck at Babina in Jhansi District. The passengers in the car were the appellant No.1, his wife Babita Agarwal and their child and the driver appellant No.2. Ghanshyam Gosai. As a result of the accident, Babita Agarwal died almost immediately and the driver and appellant No.1 suffered serious injuries. The child also suffered some injuries. 3. On 05.05.2009, an FIR was lodged by appellant No.1 against the driver of the Army truck. It was alleged that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. 4. The family of Babita Agarwal was informed about the accident and they came to Babina where the accident had taken place but it appears that for some reason the family refused to accept the body of Babita Agarwal. It appears that her family suspected foul play and they informed the police in Babina. No action was taken by the police in Babina on the complaint. Accordingly, on their return to Orissa, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in Orissa against the appellants accusing them of the offences mentioned above. It appears that her family suspected foul play and they informed the police in Babina. No action was taken by the police in Babina on the complaint. Accordingly, on their return to Orissa, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint in Orissa against the appellants accusing them of the offences mentioned above. In addition to appellant No.1 (husband of the deceased) and appellant No.2 (the driver) a complaint was also made against the family members of appellant No.1. In other words, all of them, including the driver, were accused of having committed the murder of Babita Agarwal and some of them (other than the driver) were also accused of committing an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and have also gone through the entire record of the case as well as the record of the trial court. We have also seen the relevant photographs as well as the spot map of the accident site and which is also a part of the record. From a perusal of the documents on record, it appears that the Army truck suddenly came in front of the car of the appellants and dashed it with such great force that it was dragged for about 25 steps from the road towards some vacant land. In the process, Babita Agarwal received injuries which resulted in her death. 6. Looking to the facts of the case, the manner in which the accident took place and the photographs, it seems improbable that the appellants had caused the murder of Babita Agarwal by state-managing such a serious accident. When the accident took place with the Army truck, Babita Agarwal was sitting on the rear seat behind the driver and the impact of the truck at that place seems to have caused her death. 7. It is true that respondent No.2 made an allegation of demand of dowry of Rs. 7 lakhs by appellant No.1 particularly when appellant No.1 was in Orissa on 12.03.2009 and on 1.5.2009. It is alleged that he had informed the parents of Babita Agarwal on 1.05.2009 that in case the amount is not paid on or before 02.05.2009, he will not take Babita Agarwal back with him to Delhi. 7 lakhs by appellant No.1 particularly when appellant No.1 was in Orissa on 12.03.2009 and on 1.5.2009. It is alleged that he had informed the parents of Babita Agarwal on 1.05.2009 that in case the amount is not paid on or before 02.05.2009, he will not take Babita Agarwal back with him to Delhi. As the facts indicate appellant No.1 did take Babita Agarwal back with him on 04.05.2009 when the alleged accident took place and there is nothing to indicate that this was because the demand of Rs. 7 lakhs as dowry was fulfilled. 8. We are of the view that the allegation of a demand of dowry was an afterthought and an overreaction to the death of Babita Agarwal. No complaint of a demand for dowry was made prior to the death of the Babita Agarwal but it was made only when respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.05.2009 which has resulted in the impugned order. There is no complaint of a demand for dowry having been made prior to that for at least 5 years during the time when the parties were married. 9. In our opinion, the facts indicate that no case has been made out for proceeding against the appellants either under various Sections of the IPC or under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the complaint against the appellants deserves to be quashed and we do so accordingly. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.