Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Umendra Mohan Sharma vs Shrimati Sangita Sharma on 16 April, 2014
6*ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2081 OF 2010
UMENDRA MOHAN SHARMA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SHRIMATI SANGITA SHARMA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(With appln. for stay)
Date: 16/04/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL
For Appellant(s) Dr. (M) Laxmi Shastri, Adv.
Ms. Promila,Adv.(NP)
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.Z.Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Sohaib Khan, Adv.
Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(Usha Bhardwaj) [Sneh Lata Sharma]
A.R.-cum-P.S.) Court Master
Signed order is placed on the file.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2081 OF 2010
Umendra Mohan Sharma .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Shrimati Sangita Sharma & Anr. .. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard Mr. M.Z. Choudhary learned counsel for the respondent.
Being dissatisfied with the order dated 4th November, 2008 passed in Criminal Revision No.469 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior whereby the Revisional Court has uncinated the order dated 27th September, 1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in accepting the Final Report (FR) in Crime No.6/94 registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the informant.
On perusal of the order passed by the High Court it appears that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate clearly reflects that the Final Report ...2/-
:2:submitted by the investigating agency was accepted without notice to the informant, the wife of the appellant herein. Placing reliance on a three Judge Bench decision in Bhagwant Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. AIR 1985 SC 1285, the High Court set aside the order and directed the learned Magistrate to offer an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and then pass appropriate order on the final report submitted by the investigating agency.
The singular question that emerges for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directing him to provide an opportunity to the informant to putforth her stand before acceptance of the final report/final form. In Bhagwant Singh (supra) while analysing the scheme under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court while dealing with various situations eventually opined thus:
"There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2) (i) of S.173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of S.173 decides not to take cognizance of the ...3/-:3:
offence and to drop the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report."
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law we do not perceive any error in the order passed by the High Court and accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
....................J. [ DIPAK MISRA ] ...................J. [ M.Y. EQBAL] NEW DELHI, APRIL 16, 2014.