Judgment Analysis

BRIEF FACTS:

The complainant registered FIR, U/s 493 of IPC, and Sec- 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act against the appellant herein, the allegations made in the F.I.R. were that complainant/Respondent No.-2 approached Appellants with the proposal of marriage of his daughter Jyoti, thereafter ring ceremony was performed and  marriage was finalized. Thereafter appellant no.2 started visiting the place of the complainant/respondent no.2 after that appellant no.2 misleading his daughter Jyoti on the pretext of marriage that the marriage is already finalized and only ceremony of ‘feras’ remains to be performed and took her for outings on various occasions. On 16.08.2013 appellant No.-2 induced Jyoti to his room and established physical relationship with her . on the other hand, later the appellant started making demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakh. A complaint in this view was made before Mahila Thana but no action was taken. On coming to know that marriage of Appellant No.-2 was settled with some other girl for a handsome amount of dowry, hence First Information Report was being lodged.

That after investigation of the hereinabove matter the charge sheet was filed by the concerned IO against appellants herein U/s 493 of IPC & sec- 3, 4 of the Dowery prohibition act, immediately appellants moved to the high court u/s 482 of crpc, where they prayed for quashing the charge sheet, the appellant urged before the High Court that the complainant had falsely fabricated the criminal against them just for avoiding the sharing the marriage expenses. In view of the above High Court observed and held that there are no justifiable grounds to quash the charge sheet and accordingly dismissed the petition.

Thereafter appellant herein moved to the Hon’ble supreme court against the dismissal order of high court where the submission made by the counsel for appellant that the fresh criminal action can not be launched on the basis of the same cause of action, which was already settled 10 months back by way of compromise which was acted upon by both the parties.

In view of the above and after consideration the arguments that were submitted by both the parties the supreme court framed most important issue that whether settlement arrived between the parties could be a ground to quash criminal proceedings under section 482 of Cr.P.C .

After the discussion the supreme court held that the offences for which the appellants have been charged are infect offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences.

The next issue which arises for consideration is whether the allegations made in the F.I.R constitute commission of an offence. As already stated hereinabove, the appellants have been charged with Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and held after read the section 493 of IPC that accused must have practiced deceit and made her believe that she is lawfully wedded to him and establish physical relationship.

Held in view of the above that the no prima facie cases has been made out under section 493 of IPC as per the allegations of FIR and further held for the offence under dowry prohibition act to constitute offence under the above section, there must be a direct or indirect demand for the same either from parents or relative members and the same has been prima facie made out as per the statement given under FIR.  

important features of this judgment

• That the non- compoundable offences could not have been compromised .
• When the allegation were found to be substantiated on investigation in that case the quashing should be liable for dismissed.
• That the offences for which the accused person have been charged are infact offences against society and not private in nature in that case the quashing should be liable for dismissed.
• Section 8(2) of the dowry prohibition Act, which provides that every offence under this Act, shall be non-bailable and non-compoundable.

CONCLUSION :- The Hon’ble supreme court observed that the high court has failed to appreciate the aspects of the offence u/s 493 of IPC  and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside. However the Hon’ble court held the judgment of the High Court as sustainable with respect to the offence under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and dismissed the appeal. 

You may contact me for your specific case by visiting Contact Us