Hani Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1.

The present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, 'BNSS') has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: -

"1. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition under section 528 of B.N.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash /set-aside impugned order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned First Upper Sessions Judge Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh arising out of order dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh criminal case No. 525/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Hani Sharma and others)

That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge sheet and FIR bearing No. 09/2023 registered on dated 09.01.2023 at police station Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh filed under section 34, 498-A of I.P.C. against the petitioners in the interest of justice.

That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash entire charge dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh criminal case No. 525/2023 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Hani Sharma and others) against the petitioners in the interest of justice.

That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly grant any other reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the petition, are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year 2017 according to Hindu Rites and rituals custom. After some time of marriage, the petitioner No.1 and his relatives members started harassing and mentally torturing to the respondent No.2 in the name of less dowry and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2 has made complaint made before Police Station, Pathariya, District - Mungeli, based upon with, the police has registered the offence punishable under section 498-A, 34 of the I.P.C. as Crime No. 09/2023 against the petitioners. The police has completed investigation and produced charge sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 525/2023. The learned Magistrate has framed charge against the petitioners vide its order dated 05.08.2023 for the offence under section 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have filed criminal revision No. 24/2023 before the learned First Upper Sessions Judge Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), which has been rejected by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 05.07.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the aforequoted prayers.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Revisional Court are contrary to law and facts on record. It is contended that both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have failed to appreciate that the allegations made in the complaint are vague, omnibus, and lack specific particulars regarding the alleged demand of dowry or acts of cruelty. The petitioners have been falsely implicated due to matrimonial discord, and no prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC is made out against them. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, while framing charges, did not apply judicial mind and mechanically proceeded despite the absence of sufficient material to constitute the alleged offence. It is further argued that the continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law, as the essential ingredients of Section 498-A IPC are not satisfied from the material available on record. The learned counsel submits that even if the entire allegations in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, they do not disclose any specific act of cruelty or harassment attributable to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to be discharged from the alleged offences to secure the ends of justice.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and supports the impugned orders passed by both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court. It is submitted that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offence under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, along with the material collected by the prosecution, prima facie establish that the petitioners subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry. It is further contended that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case exists, and not to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence. It is further submitted that both the learned trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have rightly appreciated the material available on record and have passed well-reasoned orders, which do not call for any interference.

From perusal of the impugned orders and material available on record, it transpires that the allegations made by respondent No.2 in her complaint are sufficient to prima facie establish the commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the charge-sheet and relevant material on record, rightly framed the charge against the petitioners. It is well settled that at the stage of framing charges, the Court need not conduct a detailed examination of evidence, but merely determine whether there exists a prima facie case. In the present case, the materials placed before the Court, including the complainant's statements and the investigation report, clearly indicate that the petitioners subjected the respondent to cruelty and harassment, which are essential elements under Section 498-A of the IPC.

Moreover, the petitioners had previously filed CRMP No. 796 of 2023, challenging the FIR and the charge-sheet. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 17.04.2023, dismissed the said petition, thereby upholding the legal validity of the FIR and the charge-sheet. This earlier dismissal by the learned Single Judge further confirms that the petitioners' contentions regarding the lack of a prima facie case are without merit and do not warrant reconsideration at this stage.

In view of the above, it is evident that the petitioners' challenges to the impugned charge framing order and the dismissal of the revision petition are unsubstantiated. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Revisional Court are upheld.