Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Krishanlal Bhutyani on 6 July, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2017
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 9585 OF 2013)
State of Madhya Pradesh …Appellant(s)
Versus
Krishanlal Bhutiyani and Others …Respondent(s)
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No. 1687 of 2014)
Jyoti Khatri …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh …Respondent(s)
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
Leave granted in both the matters.
These appeals are separately filed by the State of Madhya Signature Not Verified Pradesh as well as the complainant(mother of the deceased) Digitally signed by questioning the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the High Court SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.08.12 08:10:15 PKT Reason: of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench in M.CR.C. No. 8292 of 2012 2 wherein the High Court has quashed the F.I.R. dated 11.10.2012 registered under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
We have perused the order of the High Court, Wherein the court has not examined the material relating to the case, except narrating the facts of the case. Additionally it can be seen that the High Court without applying its mind, according to us, has quashed the F.I.R.
Before us, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused raised several issues stating that the FIR does not disclose any cause of action and does not make out any offence against the accused persons. Therefore in his opinion the High Court has rightly quashed the FIR.
It is to be noted that when serious allegations of dowry harassment and torture are alleged, the court should have been cautious in quashing the FIR. Prima facie the material placed before us indicates that demand of dowry was present and there was a continuous torture meted out to her for more than six years. As observed by us, the investigation is still not complete and the charge sheet has not yet been filed, at this stage, it is not proper to comment on the merits of the case, but sufficient to say that there is material to show a prima facie case.
3Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the order passed by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents has made a request that the accused be given protection of arrest. We are not inclined to grant any protection to the accused. We direct the respondents to surrender before the concerned court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such surrender, the trial court is directed to consider the prayer for grant of regular bail expeditiously, upon filing of application for regular bail, by the accused person.
……………………………J. (N.V. Ramana) ……………………………J. (Prafulla C. Pant) NEW DELHI, JULY 06, 2017 4 ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.9 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). 9585/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-11-2012 in MCRC No. 8292/2012 passed by the High Court Of M.p At Gwalior) THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS KRISHANLAL BHUTYANI & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(Crl) No. 1687/2014 (II-A) Date : 06-07-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
for Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Ms. Christi Jain, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv.
Ms. Christi Jain, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
For Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted in both the matters. The appeals are allowed and the order passed by the High Court 5 is set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents has made a request that the accused be given protection of arrest. We are not inclined to grant any protection to the accused. We direct the respondents to surrender before the concerned court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such surrender, the trial court is directed to consider the prayer for grant of regular bail expeditiously, upon filing of application for regular bail, by the accused person.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (SHAKTI PARKASH SHARMA)
AR CUM PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)