Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Poonam Chaudhary And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 August, 2013
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rekha Mittal
Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013
Date of decision: 20.08.2013
Dr. Poonam Chaudhary and another ........ Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-
Present: Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioners
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
Rekha Mittal, J.
Through the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners pray for quashing of FIR No. 697 dated 19.12.2005 under sections 498-A, 406, 353, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak (Annexure P6) and order framing charges dated 14.06.2013 (Annexures P11 and P12) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Brief facts of this case are that Raj Bahadur brother of Dr. Poonam Chaudhary, was married with Anju, respondent No. 2, on 04.12.1999. The complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) initiated the criminal proceedings levelling allegations against her husband and his family members, including the present petitioners (sister and sister's husband of Raj Bahadur) that the accused are guilty of committing breach of trust in Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 2 regard to articles of her istridhan and subjecting her to mal-treatment, harassment amounting to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry.
The petitioners, earlier filed a petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and the subsequent proceedings, vide CRM M 44330 of 2007, which was disposed of by this court on 05.11.2008. An extract from order passed on 05.11.2008 is quoted herein below:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioners being married sister-in-law and her husband and they have been married 9 years prior to the marriage are residing separate at Yamuna Nagar. They have nothing to do with the articles of dowry and the allegations of the maltreatment as alleged in the complaint qua them are not correct. The complaint has been filed to throw the net wider.
Under these circumstances, petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to take into consideration all the pleas including that of separate residence of the petitioners in separate town at the time of framing of the charge and pass a speaking order in this regard. However, their personal appearance during the proceedings shall remain exempted on material dates as it deems appropriate."
Subsequent thereto, the petitioners argued the matter before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak on the question of framing of charge. The learned trial Court passed a detailed order on 14.06.2013 framing charge against Raj Bahadur and others including the present petitioner for offence under Sections 406/498-A read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners, Sandeep and Jagjit Kaur and offence under Section 323, 498-A, Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 3 406, 34, 506 IPC against accused Raj Bahadur.
Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court, the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR and orders framing of charge.
Counsel for the petitioners was asked to advance arguments on the question of maintainability at the stage of notice of motion.
Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that as the petitioners are not entitled to produce documents in revision proceedings, which are otherwise of unimpeachable character or authenticity, filing of a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is the only alternative available to them, to establish that the proceedings before the trial Court are nothing, but an abuse and misuse of process of law. It is further submitted that availability of an alternative remedy under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C does not debar the petitioners from filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In support of his contention, he has relied upon 'Dhariwal Tabaco Products Limited and others v. State of Mahartashtra and another', 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 677. Counsel argues that the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration', 1996(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 410, giving a right to the accused to produce documents at the stage of consideration of charge, is no longer a good law in view of later judgment in 'State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi', 2005(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 297. It is further argued that Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in 'Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others', 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 924, has held that there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing charge and only Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 4 such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C could be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is free to consider the material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge is framed, could be maintained.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records.
There cannot be any dispute of the settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing charge, the accused cannot seek production of any material to prove his innocence as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), 'Rukmini Narvekar's case (supra) and 'Pawan Kumar v. Rajeev Sawhney and another', 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 354. In 'Dhariwal Tabaco Products Limited's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that an application under section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot be dismissed only on the ground that an alternative remedy of filing a revision under section 397 Cr.P.C was available to the accused. However, in the said case, the petitioner had approached the High Court seeking quashing of pending criminal complaint and summoning order issued by the Magistrate and the petition was dismissed by the High Court on a finding that as an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was available to the accused, the petition is not maintainable.
In the case in hand, the petitioners filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint while relying upon the same set of allegations and documents which are now appended with the petition, but the petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 05.11.2008, Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 5 passed in CRM M 44330 of 2007, reproduced hereinabove. The petitioners, under these circumstances, cannot be allowed to agitate the same plea to quash the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that as the petitioners are not entitled to file materials at the stage of the framing charge by the trial Court and for that reason, in proceedings before the Court of revision under section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C., a serious prejudice would be caused, if documents of unimpeachable authenticity, supporting the cause of the petitioners, are not considered to challenge the order framing of charge, passed by the trial Court. However, in case, the petitioners are allowed to maintain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to lay challenge to the order framing of charge solely on the ground that the documents appended with the petition can be taken into consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it would amount to putting premium on an action, which is otherwise not permissible legally as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), and 'Rukmini Narvekar's case (supra). The petitioners cannot be permitted to obviate the ratio of decisions in afore-cited authorities in the guise of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, particularly, in the circumstances that earlier petition filed by them under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR, has not been allowed.
This apart, if the petitioners are allowed to take recourse to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C to challenge order framing of charge by relying upon materials in their favour, it would enable every litigant to cross the hurdle created in view of the provisions of law interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in aforesaid cases.
Bimbra Mohan Lal2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M 24182 of 2013 6
Counsel for the petitioners has made a feeble attempt to argue that the petitioners would file a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, but a direction may be issued to the said Court, to consider the documents of the petitioners appended with the present petition. The contention made by counsel for the petitioners totally disregards what has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 'Debendra Nath Padhi's case (supra), 'Rukmini Narvekar's case (supra). The contention of counsel merits out right rejection being untenable.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed in limine. However, if the petitioners prefer a revision petition before the Court of Sessions within a period of one month, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge 20.08.2013 mohan Bimbra Mohan Lal 2013.08.30 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh