AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhumati Mitra, J
The petitioners being the accused of GR. Case No.857/13 arising out of Kandi Police Station Case No.361/13 dated 08.06.2013 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandi, Murshidabad. The application filed by the accused/petitioners of G.R. Case No.857/13 has been registered as CRR No.845/2016.
The de facto complainant of said G.R. Case No.857/13 has also filed an application under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prying for expeditious disposal of the said case. That application has been registered as CRR 193/19.
Both the applications being C.R.R. No.845/16 and CRR No.193/19 have been heard together for the sake of convenience as both the applications have arisen in connection with same G.R. Case No.857 of 2013.
The facts which are necessary to dispose of both the applications may be summarized as under:-
The opposite party no.2 of CRR No.845 of 2016 is the petitioner of CRR No.193 of 2019 who lodged a written complaint with Kandi Police Station Murshidabad against the accused persons. It has been alleged in the said complaint that the daughter of the complainant had love affairs with one Md. Samrat Seikh for about 7 years. It has been specifically alleged that said Samrat Seikh forcibly committed rape against the will of her daughter for the last 2 years prior to the date of lodging complaint by her daughter against said smart Seikh on 15.05.2013. Thereafter being instigated by his parents and elder brother said Samrat Seikh refused to marry the daughter of the de-facto complainant. Daughter of the de-facto complainant lodged one FIR being Kandi police station Case No.302/13 against said Samrat. Samrat Seikh was arrested and was taken into custody in connection with that case. The parents and the other relatives of Samrat Seikh started to pressurize the daughter of the de-fact complainant to withdraw the case initiated by her against Samrat Seikh and instigated the daughter of the de-fact complainant to commit suicide. From the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant the mother of the victim it appears that her daughter committed suicide leaving one suicide note mentioning that she was compelled to commit suicide due to instigation of the accused persons. On the basis of the said FIR Kandi, P.S. Case No.361/13 dated 08.06.2013 was started against the persons named in FIR. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the FIR named accused persons for commission of the alleged offence punishable under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the accused persons except Samrat Seikh have approached before this court by filing an application under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings pending against them.
On the other hand the de-facto complainant has filed one separate application under Section 483 of the Code Criminal Procedure praying for expeditious disposal of the case that GR Case No.851/13 arising out of Kandi Police Station No.361/13 dated 08.06.2013 under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and G.R. Case No.351/13 arising out Kandi police station case No.302 dated 15.05.2013 under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code.
From the materials placed on record and having regard to the submissions made by the Learned counsel for the parties it transpires that Kandi P.S. Case No.302 of 2013 dated 15.05.2013 was initiated by the victim girl and Kandi P.S. Case No.361/2013 dated 08.06.2013 under Section 306/34(ii) of the Indian Penal Code was started on the basis of FIR lodged by one Dulnehar Sk. the mother of the victim girl.
In her FIR the victim girl alleged that she had a relation with accused Samrat Seikh over a period of 7 years and Said Samrat Seikh had promised to marry her and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her for the last two years prior to the date of lodging FIR by her. In her FIR the victim girl alleged that when she asked accused Samrat Seikh to marry and he refused to marry her.
The materials collected during investigation reveal that Samrat Seikh was arrested in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No.302/13 and he was taken into judicial custody. The victim girl was pressurized by the parents and the other relatives of Samrat Seikh to withdraw the case initiated by her. The victim girl was instigated on several occasions to commit suicide. The victim girl committed suicide on 08.06.2013. Thereafter the mother of the victim girl lodged an FIR against the said Samrat Seikh, his parents and other relatives for commission of the alleged offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation in both the cases culminated in submission of charge-sheet. In Kandi Police Station Case No.302/13 charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Samrat Seikh for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheet was submitted against all the FIR named accused persons in Kandi P.S. case no.361/16 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have advanced their eloquent arguments. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners have cited a series of decisions.
I after carefully and assiduously examining the submissions and counter submissions advanced by all the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties both on the legal and factual aspects and after scrupulously scanning the materials placed on record and considering the arguments submitted by the parties, would like to deal with those contention seriatim.
Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be better to deal with the offence alleged in the First Information Report as well as in the charge-sheet.
For the convenience Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code may be cited.
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine".
In this connection it would not be out of place to mention Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-"A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy or in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing".
On the other hand, it is the settled principle of law that in order to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the contents of the First Information Report shall have to be examined and the High Court at that stage has no jurisdiction to go into the merit or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the First Information Report shall be taken into consideration to see whether the allegations contained in the FIR or complaint or the statements of the witnesses in support of the same taken of their face value make out any offence as alleged against the petitioners/accused.
The allegation against the petitioners of CRR 845 of 2016 arising out of GR case No.857 of 2013 is that they abated the commission of suicide of the victim girl. The victim girl prior to commit suicide lodged an FIR making specific allegations that she was forcefully subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise to marry by Samrat Seikh and subsequently he refused to marry her. There after the girl committed suicide leaving suicide note. Her suicide notes revealed that she was pressurized to withdraw the criminal case lodged by her against the accused Samrat Seikh and his parents and other relatives. She was instigated to commit suicide by the accused persons. After death of victim girl her mother lodged another FIR against Samrat Seikh, his parents and relatives.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners of CRR no. 845/16 has contended that in the instant case the petitioners are the parents and relatives of accused Samrat Seikh and have no connection with the commission of the alleged offence under section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to his contention the allegation contained in the FIR lodged by the victim girl revealed that accused Samrat Seikh refused to marry the victim girl after committing sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. It is specific contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the victim girl did not make allegation in her FIR against the present petitioners. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has further submitted that the victim girl committed suicide at her own residence on 8.06.2013. In course of his submission the learned Counsel has further submitted that the victim girl was highly qualified and she had relation with accused Samrat Seikh for more than 7 years. She consented to allege sexual intercourse with Samrat Seikh and at the relevant point of time the victim lady was above 18 years of age. Learned Counsel has further submitted that if the consent for having sexual intercourse was obtained by Samrat Seikh on the assurance of marriage, then it would be a case of breach of promise to many and in that case Samrat Seikh would be prima facie responsible for that offence.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has forcefully submitted that the victim girl in her complaint made allegations only against Samrat Seikh. He has forcefully contented the parents of the accused Samrat Seikh and his relatives have no connection with the alleged crime. Learned Counsel has also contended that the proceedings against the parents and relatives of Samrat Seikh would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
In support of his contention the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed his reliance on the decisions of Pepsi Foods & Ors. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in (1998)5 SCC 749; Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002 SCC(cri) 1141; Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (cri.) 543; Sandip Bhattacharjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2007 SCC online Cal 587;
Prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings in GR case no.587/13 has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the State. According to her contention the materials in the case diary do not justify to quash of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. She has contended that the victim girl committed suicide. The alleged suicide note of the victim girl was sent to the hand writing expert and the report of the hand writing expert opined that the hand writings of alleged suicide notes are the handwriting of the victim girl. In the suicide note it was written by the victim girl that she was compelled to commit suicide due to the pressure created by the accused persons.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 has also opposed the prayer of the petitioners of quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. She has vigorously argued that in the First Information Report there is specific allegation against the present petitioners. More over the alleged suicide note left by the victim girl contained specific allegations that she was compelled to commit suicide due to the pressure created by the accused persons.
From the materials placed on record it appears that the victim girl committed suicide leaving behind one suicide note. In her suicide note she wrote the reasons for committing suicide and mentioned the names of the persons who compelled her to take the said decision. The report of the hand writing expert indicates the hand writing of the victim girl in the alleged suicide note and on the alleged suicide note are same.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them on the ground that the victim girl committed suicide in her own residence after few days of her lodging FIR against accused Samrat Seikh for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the victim girl committed suicide due to depression and parents and relatives of the accused Samrat SeikhSeikh have no way connected with the commission of the alleged crime.
The first information report, the charge-sheet and the materials collected during the investigation clearly indicate the existence the prima facie case for proceeding for alleged offence against the petitioners.
Moreover, quashing of prosecution by the High Court by appreciating evidence is not proper when the allegations made in the First Information Report and the materials referred to in the charge sheet prima facie make out alleged offence. The Court while considering the prayer for quashing should not assume the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and to consider the plea of innocence of the accused. While considering the prayer for quashing the High Court should not delving deep into the merit of the case or adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact.
Considering all aspects, I am of the view that the allegations as made in the FIR prima facie constitute the offence alleged. Subsequent submission of charge sheet against the petitioners and the materials collected during investigation make out prima facie case for proceedings against the petitioners.
The instant case does not come within the parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in other subsequent cases, regarding exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, from the materials placed on record, it cannot be said that the continuance of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In my opinion, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a result the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. CRR 845 of 2016 is dismissed.
Interim order, if any stands vacated.
From the contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in CRR 193 of 2019 it appears that the trial of Kandi Police Station Case No.361 of 2013 and 302 of 2013 are pending.
In this connection, Learned Advocate for the petitioner has sought for a specific direction upon the Learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of both the cases.
In view of above, the Learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of both the cases as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of communication of the copy of this order.
CRR 193 of 2013 is disposed of accordingly.
Before parting with the case, I would like to clarify that the observation as made in this judgment should not be taken as an expression of any opinion regarding the merit of the criminal proceedings pending before the Learned Court. The Learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law with utmost expedition.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied expeditiously after complying with all requisite legal formalities.