Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gulam Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 July, 2019
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1022 of 2019
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6944 of 2018)
GULAM ANSARI …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. …Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant complainant aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.04.2018, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr.M.P. No. 1108 of 2018.
3. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: Appellant registered FIR No. 177 of 2016 dated 02.08.2016 for alleged offences under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.07.16 amongst others. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent 16:08:40 IST Reason: Nos. 2 and 3 were involved in the death of his daughter, 1 resulting from demands for dowry. The Investigating Officer filed a petition before the Magistrate seeking issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused persons, including the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The same was allowed on 22.10.2016. Apprehending their arrest Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court while dismissing the anticipatory bail preferred by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, vide order dated 05.01.2017, directed the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to surrender before the Court. Since the Respondents No. 2 and 3 were evading arrest, the Investigating Officer approached the Magistrate seeking issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C; the same was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2017. Subsequently, the High Court, while hearing A.B.A. No. 677 of 2017, vide order dated 08.02.2017, directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the Respondents No.2 and 3 in connection with the case pending before the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the High Court, the Appellant had preferred a special leave petition before this court, which was later on withdrawn.
4. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.05.2017, the High Court 2 dismissed the anticipatory bail application preferred by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in A.B.A. No. 677 of 2017, by observing that if the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been issued, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Aggrieved, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, sought for the quashing of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The same came to be allowed by the High Court, vide order dated 25.07.2017.
5. It ought to be noted that again the Magistrate issued process against the Respondents No. 2 and 3, vide order dated 02.08.2017. Once again, vide order dated 21.09.2017, anticipatory bail was denied by the Sessions Judge, and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to surrender within 15 days. Meanwhile, the Magistrate issued fresh order of process dated 30.10.2017. The High Court, in A.B.A No. 6803 of 2017, while dealing with application of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking anticipatory bail, directed that no coercive action should be taken against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid anticipatory bail application, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, preferred an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of the order of 3 proclamation.
6. Vide order dated 18.04.2018, the High Court allowed the application preferred by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and quashed the order of issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the Appellantcomplainant has preferred this Appeal by way of Special Leave.
7. The counsel on behalf of the Appellant has submitted that the order of the High Court has been rendered without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of Magistrate as the same suffered from infirmities and was not substantiated with any cogent reasons.
8. Heard learned Counsels from both sides.
9. The Appellantcomplainant has made categorical allegations that the deceased, after marriage, was subjected to torture in connection with demands for dowry. The marriage was solemnized on 22.04.2015 and the incident took place on 02.08.2016. Moreover, the post mortem report substantiates the fact of death by strangulation as circular ligature marks 4 were found on the neck of the deceased.
10. It is pertinent for us to first take a note of the conduct of the Respondents No. 2 and 3. On multiple occasions the Court below had directed the Respondents No. 2 and 3 to surrender within a particular period. However, they failed to comply with the same. It was for this reason that the Magistrate had to use his discretionary powers under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Even after the passing of the proclamation order, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 did not show any inclination to surrender. In the judgment impugned before us, the High Court has set aside the order of the Magistrate on the ground that there was no independent finding regarding the necessity for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. However, we are not in agreement with the same. A perusal of the Magistrate’s order indicates that the same was passed only after the anticipatory bail application of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 was rejected and they had failed to comply with the direction to surrender. In this context, the Magistrate noted that the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are evading arrest, while having full knowledge of the proceedings. Furthermore, we find that the Magistrate also took into consideration the 5 nature of the allegations, and the facts and circumstances of the case, while passing the order under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.
11. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the High Court in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. In light of the same, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and uphold the order of proclamation dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Magistrate in connection with Case No. 177 of 2016.
12. Lastly, it is surprising to note that while the present appeal was pending before us, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 moved the High Court for anticipatory bail. The counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice that the High Court has extended interim protection to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 owing to the pendency of the present appeal. The Respondents No. 2 and 3 are enjoying freedom from surrendering, while not respecting the orders of the Courts below. This is clearly an abuse of the judicial process.
13. Looking into the conduct of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, we set aside the interim protection granted to the Respondents No. 2 and 3 by the High Court vide order dated 23.04.19 in A.B.A. No. 3575 of 2018. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are 6 directed to surrender before the appropriate authority forthwith.
14. Before parting with the matter, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Trial Court is directed to adjudicate the matter expeditiously, on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made herein. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
.......................J (N.V. RAMANA) .......................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) .......................J (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI;
9TH JULY, 2019.
7
ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6944/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-04-2018 in CRMP No.1108/2018 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) GULAM ANSARI Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.109954/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.109952/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS) IA No.109954/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No.109952/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 09-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sulaiman Mohd.Khan, Adv.
Mohd.Ainul Ansari, Adv. Ms.Taiba Khan, Adv.
Mr.Sunil Khatwani, Adv. Ms.Garima Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Kripa Shankar Prasad, AOR Mr.Sujit Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr.Jeewesh Prakash, Adv. Ms.Ritu Dubey, Adv.
Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR 8 Mr.Tarun Verma, Adv.
Ms.Manju Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
- 2 -
Leave granted.
The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
9