Gujarat High Court
Sessions Judge vs State Of on 25 March, 2013
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
SESSIONS JUDGE,SURENDRANAGAR.....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) R/CRREF/1/2012 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REFERENCE NO. 1 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH - sd/- and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA sd/- ================================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ================================================================ SESSIONS JUDGE,SURENDRANAGAR.....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT....Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: No Appearance, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 25/03/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. This Reference has been made to this Court by the then learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raising following questions and to consider the question of validity of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that it suffers from gender bias inasmuch as it deals with causes of harassment and cruelty to wife by husband or relatives of husband and it fails to take notice of reverse situation i.e. harassment by wife to the husband. While making the Reference the learned Judge has raised the following questions for consideration and adjudication.
(A). Whether Section 498 A suffers from gender bias inasmuch as it deals with causes of harassment and cruelty to wife by husband or relatives of husband and it fails to take notice of reverse situation ? is Chapter XX-A is invalid on account of abdication of essential legislative function by the Parliament OR is it ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of CoI inasmuch as it makes invidious discrimination between male and female gender in case of cruelty / suicide within Chapter XX-A and also with reference to Section 306 inasmuch as Section 306 being more serious offence compared to Section 498 A and Parliament has failed to provide for offence analogous to Section 498 A cruelty by wife in Chapter XX-A ? That in the circumstances, it is not saved by Article 15(3).
(B). Is it possible to question the validity of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code on the ground of failure to satisfy the test of proportionality when the same is applied by applying the test laid down in Combatore District Cooperative Bank (2007) 4 SCC 669 ? and / or by applying the principle as laid down in All India Railway Recruitment Board Case, (2010) 6 SCC 614.
(C). In view of that observation made in Anwar Ali Sarkar case, AIR 1952 SC 75 is it possible to say that Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code is either unreasonable or arbitrary to the extent that it fails to cover the grievance of the complainant herein and harassment and cruelty caused by wife or her relatives to the husband ? Can it be said that on the principle of severability as applied in Naz Foundation Case, 2010 Cri.LJ 94, part of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code is legal and valid insofar as it deals with offence stated therein and bad and illegal to the extent it fails to cover cases of other gender ?
2.0. The facts leading to the present Reference made under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in nutshell are as under:
3.0. The accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 2010 came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar for the offences under Section 306 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. That the deceased was the husband and -original accused no.1 was the husband of the sister of the accused no.2, and accused no.2 was the wife of the deceased and accused no.3 was the mother in law of the deceased. That the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR against the accused persons for the offences under Section 306 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that deceased committed the suicide because of the harassment by the accused persons, more particularly, wife -original accused no.2 and further alleging that original accused no.2 wife of the deceased was quarrel some and original accused no.1 and 3 were also harassing him. Therefore, it was alleged that continued harassment by the accused led the deceased to commit the suicide. That after the investigation was concluded, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet in the Court of learned JMFC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was registered as Sessions Case No. 55 of 2010 and the accused persons came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar. That the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the offences under Section 306 r/w section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution led the evidences documentary as well as oral and as such on appreciation of evidence and by judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 the then learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar has acquitted all the accused for the offences under Section 306 r/w Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. However, while disposing of the trial the then learned Sessions Judge has made a Reference to this Court in exercise of powers under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure raising the aforesaid questions for consideration of this Court.
4.0. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that as such the present Reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invalid and / or unwarranted. It is submitted that all conditions which are provided under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for making the Reference to High Court are not satisfied. It is submitted that in the present case as such the trial / Sessions Case has been disposed of by the learned Judge at the time of making a Reference and therefore, the Reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Judge is invalid inasmuch as no case was pending before him and therefore, all the conditions of Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not satisfied. It is submitted that considering Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where any Court is satisfied that the case pending before it involves a question as to validity of an Act or Ordinance of any provision containing an Act or Ordinance, determination which is necessary for the disposal of the Court, the concerned Court may make a Reference to the High Court. It is submitted that considering sub-section (2) of Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pending the decision of such Reference, the Court making a Reference may either commit the accused to jail or release him on jail to appear when called upon, meaning thereby the case necessarily has to be kept pending. It is submitted that in the present case neither the determination of the questions referred are necessary for the disposal of the case nor even the trial / case has been kept pending. In support of her above submissions, Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has heavily relied upon the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Abdul Rashid Shalla vs. Jagdish Lal and others reported in AIR 1969 J & K 60 as well as decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nadikatla Suryanarayana vs. Forest Range Officer, Kurupam and others reported in AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 128.
4.1. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has submitted that even on merits also and considering the statement and object of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires on the ground of gender bias inasmuch as it deals with causes of harassment and cruelty to wife by husband or relatives of husband only and it does not provide any harassment or cruelty by wife to the husband. It is submitted that when the legislature in its wisdom and specifically with a view to protect the women / wife against the harassment and cruelty by the husband or relatives of the husband has enacted Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, it cannot be said that Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires on the ground stated by the learned Judge.
4.2. It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned APP for the State that as such vires of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code are upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 3100 and therefore, it is requested to answer Reference accordingly.
4.3. It is further submitted by Ms. Shah, learned APP for the State that even the decisions relied upon by the learned Judge while making a Reference i.e. in the case of Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank vs. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Association and Another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 669 and in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC 614 cannot be made applicable while considering the special provision i.e. Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such the learned Judge has failed to consider the object and purpose of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is requested to answer Reference accordingly and dismiss the same.
5.0. Heard. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered the questions raised by the learned Judge while making the reference to this Court under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.1. Present is a Reference made by the then learned Sessions Judge, Surendrangar under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On fair reading of Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the Court, and is of the opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall State a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefore, and, refer the same for the decision of the High Court. Therefore, while making the reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there must be a case pending decision before the concerned Court and a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act or Ordinance or any provision contained in an Act. While making Reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only that question can be referred to the concerned High Court, the determination of which must be necessary for the disposal of the case and the concerned Court must be of the opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid and inoperative. Unless the aforesaid conditions are satisfied the concerned Court lacks power and / or authority to make Reference to the High Court.
5.2. In the present case, admittedly, the trial has been finally disposed of by the learned Judge and the accused persons are acquitted for the offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, as such at the time when the learned Judge had made a Reference to this Court, the trial / case was not kept pending before him. Even considering the questions raised by the learned Judge and which are referred to this Court for decision which are reproduced hereinabove, it cannot be said that the determination of the said questions were/ are necessary for the disposal of the case. In the case before the learned Judge accused were being tried for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and the allegations against the accused persons were that due to ill treatment or harassment of the wife
-original accused no.2, husband committed the suicide and as such on appreciation of evidence, the learned Judge has acquitted the accused persons for the offences under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, for the disposal of the case before the learned Judge vires of provision of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code were not required to be considered at all. As the accused persons were not charged for the offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, there was no question to consider the provision of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code while deciding the trial. Therefore, the questions raised by the learned Judge that Section 498 A suffers from gender bias inasmuch as is dealt with causes of harassment and cruelty to wife by the husband or relatives of the husband and it fails to take notice of reverse situation does not arise at all and even the questions raised by the learned Judge with respect to validity of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code was not required to be gone into while considering the trial before him and / or as such it cannot be said that the said questions were necessary for the disposal of the case before him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as all the conditions stipulated in Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not satisfied the reference made by the learned Judge is not tenable in law and / or is not maintainable and therefore, the questions raised by the learned Judge while making a Reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are as such not required to be Answered.
5.3. Identical question came to be considered by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case of Abdul Rashid Shalla (supra).
In the said decision, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was considering Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) (added by J and K Act 27 of 1957) which is analogues to present Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While considering the analogues provision, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has observed and held that High Court is not a advisory body and it is not open to any Magistrate to refer any question of fact for the opinion of the High Court. It is further observed and held by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that for applicability of Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) which is analogues to Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following conditions must concur:-
(1). The Court must be satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, or Ordinance or any provision contained in an Act, or Ordinance. The question involved must be real and substantial. A mere plea by a party that an Act or Ordinance or provision contained in an Act or Ordinance is ultra vires or a mere doubt entertained by the Court would not be enough. If the Court is not so satisfied, it should proceed with the trial and leave the aggrieved party to move the High Court under Section 105 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and continue the trial until such a motion is admitted and trial stayed by the High Court.
(2). The determination of the said question must be necessary for the disposal of the case.
(3). The Court must be of the opinion that such Act or Ordinance or provision is invalid or inoperative.
(4). The said Act or Ordinance or provision must not have been already declared by the High Court to which the Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court to be invalid or inoperative.
5.4. After observing the above, it is held that it is only when all the aforesaid conditions are satisfied that at a trial Magistrate has power to make a Reference to the High Court and in no other case can trial Magistrate make a Reference to the High Court. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the aforesaid decision.
5.5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, in the present case when the trial / case has already been disposed of by the learned Judge meaning thereby no case was kept pending before the learned Judge at the time when he made a Reference to this Court and the questions which are raised by the learned Judge and referred to this Court were/ are not necessary for the disposal of the case, we are of the opinion the Reference itself is wholly untenable and / or unwarranted .
5.6. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even vires of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code are upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (supra).
6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we decline to answer the reference and questions raised by the learned Judge and referred to this Court as , Reference itself is wholly untenable and unwarranted. With this, present Reference is disposed of.
sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/-
(S.H.VORA, J.) Kaushik Page 11 of 11