Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3) On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Police registered impugned FIR for offences under Sections 316/323/109 RPC and started investigation of the case. Vide order dated 17.04.2018 passed by this Court in the instant petition, investigation to the extent of offence under Section 316 RPC was stayed, but it appears that the investigation of the case continued in respect of the other offences.

4) The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that all the offences alleged in the impugned FIR are non-cognizable in nature, as such, it was not open to the police to register the FIR and undertake the investigation of the case without permission of the Magistrate. It has been contended that the investigation of the impugned FIR is without jurisdiction and, as such, the same deserves to be quashed. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that as per the medical report, there was no positive evidence with regard to the pregnancy of the complainant, as such, offences under Sections 313 and 316 of RPC are not otherwise made out against the petitioner. It has been contended that once the registration of basic FIR in respect of non-cognizable offences is without jurisdiction, the Investigating Agency cannot add cognizable offences during the investigation of the case.

5) The respondent-State has filed its objections to the petition and has filed the status report with regard to the investigation. As per the status reports filed by the Investigating Agency, after registration of the impugned FIR, the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded, on the basis of the which, offences under Sections 316 and 498-A RPC were added and offence under Section 316 RPC was dropped. Status reports further indicate that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer called the complainant for recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but she has not responded so far.

10) Before determining the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apt to mention here that although offences under Sections 313 and 316 IPC have been categorized as cognizable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, yet corresponding offences under the Ranbir Penal Code i.e. Section 313 and Section 316 of RPC, as per the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, are non-cognizable in nature. The offence under Section 323 RPC is also non-cognizable in nature. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the legal position that offences under Sections 316 and 323 RPC as also offence under Section 313 RPC are non- cognizable in nature.

25) Even otherwise, a perusal of the case diary reveals that statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation of the case do not disclose commission of offence under Section 498-A of RPC. The witnesses examined by the Investigating Agency have only corroborated what has been stated in the impunged FIR which, as already discussed, does not disclose commission of offence under Section 498-A RPC. So far as the earlier applications of the complainant/ respondent No. 2 to the Police, wherein she has alleged demands of dowry by the accused, are concerned, the same are not part of the case diary. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that these applications disclose commission of offence under section 498-A RPC, cannot be looked into as the same do not form part of material collected by the Investigating Agency. In these circumstances, I fail to understand on what basis the Investigating Agency has in its status report concluded that offence under section 498-A RPC is also made out against the accused.