Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 202 penal code in Om Prakash Shyamdasani And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2016Matching Fragments
1. Applicants Om Prakash Shyamdasani, Smt. Poonam Shyamdasani, Mukesh Shyamdasani and Kamlesh Shyamdasani have directed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 3.8.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No.36 of 2015 (State Vs. Piyush Shyamdasani and others) whereby discharge application moved by the applicants has been rejected and subsequently they have been charged under Section 202 I.P.C. on 4.8.2015.
2. Brief facts in the nut shell are that marriage of co-accused Piyush Shyamdasani was solemnized with deceased Jyoti Shyamdasani on 28.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and on 27.7.2014 co-accused Piyush Shyamdasani took his deceased wife Jyoti Shyamdasani for dinner at restaurant in Kanpur Nagar. After sometime Piyush Shyamdasani lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar bearing Crime No.151 of 2014 under Sections 323, 147, 392, 364 I.P.C. alleging that some 7-8 unknown miscreants had attacked his wife while he was coming back in his Honda Accord Car (U.P. 78 BR 5009) from restaurant. The miscreants abducted his wife and ran away with his car.
5. Subsequent to investigation a charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 I.P.C against co-accused persons while charge sheet under Section 202 I.P.C. was submitted against the applicants. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. State as well as respondent no. 2 Shanker Nath Dev, father of deceased moved application for framing of charges under Sections 302, 120-B,201 and 202 I.P.C. against the applicants also. A discharge application was moved on behalf of applicants even under Section 202 Cr.P.C. claiming that they have been roped in merely because they are helping their son Piyush Shyamdasani and they have been falsely implicated in order to deter them from conducting the pairavi of co-accused Piyush Shyamdasani.
20. Coming back to the facts of the perused case, it is evident that Jyoti was brutally murdered. Her husband lodged an F.I.R. against unknown persons but investigation disclosed complicity of the husband himself. Investigating Officer and the trial Judge are satisfied with the available material to conclude that Piyush Shyamdasani and co-accused have committed the crime. Present applicants have only been charged under Section 202 I.P.C. Section 202 I.P.C. is reproduced for ready reference:
"202 I.P.C.-Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
22. A question whether the applicants had the knowledge of commission of crime or had reason to believe that said offence had been committed is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A bare perusal of Section 202 I.P.C. would disclose the knowledge of commission of offence and furnishing this information are all questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or even at the stage of framing of charges. What is clear is the fact that Jyoti Shyamdasani and Piyush Shyamdasani visited restaurant in the evening of 27.7.2014 and Jyoti Shyamdasani was murdered while coming back from restaurant. A false story was allegedly cooked up by co-accused Piyush Shyamdasani. Call details and admission on the part of applicants indicate that they were in contact with Piyush Shyamdasani. It is also evident that information was furnished to Police No.100 with some delay. Whether there are satisfactory reasons for this delay or not is again question of fact. Whether information could have been given with more alacrity can only be adjudicated by trial court. Section 39 of Cr.P.C. imposes a duty on persons to furnish information of certain offences to the Police or the Magistrate. It is expected that every persons shall, in the absence of any reasonable excuse, will forthwith give information to the nearest Magistrate or Police officer of such commission. The said section also indicates that burden of proving the existence of excuse shall lie upon the person who is in possession of such information.