Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vaijnath Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 781 more particularly, paragraph-5 & 7. He has R/CR.MA/11831/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2023 also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 and submitted that the Court has ample powers under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has further relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ude Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 and submitted that the ingredients of Section -306 of IPC is explained in this judgment more particularly, the word "abetment" and "instigation". Therefore, considering this judgment, no offence is made out against the present applicants. He has more particularly relied on paragraph 15 and 16 of this judgment. He has further drawn my attention towards judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, which pertains to quashment of proceedings under section-482 as well as explanation of section 306 and 107 of IPC regarding abetment of suicide. He has further submitted by relying on the judgment in the case of Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

8. Learned APP has drawn my attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 2 SCC 129, whereby, the Court has also examined the Section-306 read with Section 107 of the IPC and discussed the aspect of abetment of suicide and also instigation on the part of the accused and submitted that the Court has also decided the powers under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of R/CR.MA/11831/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2023 proceedings by indicating requisite test for deciding the allegation made in the complaint. While exercising the power under Section-482 of IPC for quashment and also, indicated certain limitations and necessary requirement of the Section- 482 of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraphs-24 and 25 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

9. He has further drawn my attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttranchal & Anr. reported in 2012 (9) SCC 734 and has submitted that there cannot be straight- jacket formula for exercising under section-482 of Cr.P.C. or apprehending the offence registered under Section-306, 498A of IPC in the present case since prima-facie case is made out. The relevant paragraphs-17, 18 and 19 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

11. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. I have also considered the judgments, which are cited at the bar by the learned advocate for the applicants. There is no doubt that ratio of that judgments is binding to this court, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, prima- facie, it transpires from the bare reading of the FIR that there is continuous harassment due to non-conceive of the deceased after a married life of 05 years and the deceased was given mental and physical torture. Thereafter, due to sell out the golden ornaments, which were given by the father of the deceased at the time marriage to the deceased. Therefore, the deceased has told her father about the mental and physical torture was given by the applicants and family R/CR.MA/11831/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2023 members. Though the said incident was alleged before 12 months, the deceased admittedly staying at matrimonial home and therefore, it can be certainly presumed that when she has given mental as well as physical torture, she made a complaint to his father at the time when she visited her parental home. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie material is available against the applicants. While adjudicating on an application under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., the task of High Court is to determine whether the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety did or did not prima-facie constitute an offence or make out case against the accused. The allegations made in the said FIR clearly attracts the ingredients of Section-306 & 498A of IPC, which are required to decided at the time of conclusion of trial. Since the prima-facie offence is made out and required to be adjudicated by proper criminal trial, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the quashing of FIR under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. more particularly, considering the observations of the judgments cited by the learned APP in the case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. R/CR.MA/11831/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/07/2023 State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 2 SCC 129, this Court do not think fit to exercise the discretionary powers under Section-482 of Cr.P.C.