Judgment:
M.C. Jain, J.
1. The petitioners, six in number, have preferred this writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the F.I.R. dated 24th Nov. 2004 lodged against them as case crime No. 352 of 2004, under Sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot. An application has also been put in to stay their arrest in pursuance of the said F.I.R. during the pendency of the writ petition.
2. The F.I.R. is Annexure 1 to the writ petition lodged by respondent No. 4, Rajnish Kumar Agarwal brother of the deceased lady Jyoti alias Shalu who was married with petitioner No. 1 Subodh Agarwal on 14th Dec. 1998. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that a decent marriage had been performed. Cash and dowry had been given as per the capacity of the father of the deceased. When 15 days after the marriage, the deceased's father and brother (informant) went to meet her in her Sasural, she told them that her in-laws were asking her to bring a Maruti Esteem Car and Rs. 5 Lacs from her father as part of the dowry. They earnestly and courteously expressed their ability to the petitioners to meet their demands but they (petitioners) insisted that they had to fulfil the demands. The informant's father then requested for a year's time to meet the said demands. The petitioners then started harassing, torturing and assaulting the deceased, even not giving food to her. The deceased wrote a letter to her parents in Nov. 1999 about the atrocities being heaped upon in her Sasural. She also expressed her apprehension that in case the demands of her in-laws were not satisfied, she could be done to death by them. Receiving this letter, the informant's father went to the deceased's Sasural and gave some money to her in-laws, pleading that a year's time had not yet passed which he had earlier solicited for fulfilling their demands and still his daughter was being subjected to cruelties. He also showed the letter that he had received from her daughter. Petitioner No. 2 tore off that letter and asked him (father of the deceased) to meet the demands at the earliest, threatening that he would not be able to see his daughter alive otherwise. Shocked, the informant's father could not survive for long and died. The informant could not arrange finances to meet the demands of the in-laws of his sister. On 29th March, 2004, he received an information on telephone that the petitioners had murdered his sister and had then hung her dead body with a ceiling fan. He, his uncle, younger brother, mother, sister, aunt and Bahnoi (sister's husband) reached the Sasural of the deceased and found that Panchayatnama and post mortem had already been conducted and her in-laws were about to cremate her. When he and others accompanying him inquired from the petitioners as to how she died, they informed that she had committed suicide. He and others accompanying him, went to the Police Station. The police made them to sit there but did not take down their report, saying that Chhedi Lal -- petitioner No. 2 (father-in-law of informant's sister) was such an influential person that their report would not be taken down. On their repeated requests, the report was taken by the police and they were sent back. When the informant again reached the Police Station on 15th April, 2004 to inquire about, the matter, he came to know that his report had not been lodged. Then the informant addressed this report to the Superintendent of Police Chitrakoot and it appears that ultimately under the orders of the S.P. Chitrakoot dated 23rd Nov. 2004 the instant F.I.R. came to be registered on 24th Nov. 2004.
3. As per the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition, the deceased actually committed suicide and died as such. When the petitioners saw her hanging from ceiling fan, a report was immediately given by petitioner No. 2 at the Police Station which was entered in the G.D. at No. 24 at 9.30 a.m. on 29th March, 2004. Panchayatnama and, post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased were conducted. On 5th June 2004, respondent No. 4 had moved an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot whereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that a report be called for from the concerned Police Station. On 15th June 2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. Respondent No. 4 (informant) then preferred criminal revision No. 52 of 2004 thereagainst which was decided by the Sessions Judge Chitrakoot on 3rd August; 2004. The revisional Court quashed the order dated 15th June 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot and directed that the application filed by respondent No. 4 be decided in terms of Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as per Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remanded the matter for appropriate orders. Then on 9th August, 2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the said application be registered as complaint case and directed the complainant to appear for his statement under Section 200, Cr. P.C. In the meantime, respondent No. 4 has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8587 of 2004 under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court to quash the order dated 9th August, 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot. In the meantime, he also gave an application to the S.P., Chitrakoot, requesting him to get the F.I.R. registered. On the basis of the order passed by the S.P. Chitrakoot on the said application, the instant F.I.R. has been registered. The petitioners aver that they have falsely been implicated.
4. We have heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. Submissions from the side of the petitioners may be summarised thus : The F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. They have falsely been implicated and no offence is made out against them. As such, they are entitled to the relief claimed through this writ petition. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. prima facie make out the complained offences and the ordinary course of law must its own course.
5. To begin with, it is worthy to state that it is admitted that Jyoti alias Shalu was married with Subodh Agarwal petitioner No. 1 on 14th Dec. 1998. It is also admitted that petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, petitioner No. 2 is her father-in-law, petitioner No. 3 is Jeth (deceased's husband's elder brother), petitioner No. 4 is Devar (deceased's husband's younger brother), petitioner No. 5 is Jethani (wife of elder brother of husband of the deceased) and petitioner No. 6 is Devrani (wife of younger brother of husband of the deceased).
6. As per the post-mortem report, Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Ligature mark was present around the neck as per the ante-mortem injury found on the person of the deceased. Obviously, it was unnatural death. It is an undisputed fact that the incident took place in the Sasural of the deceased within seven years of her marriage. The allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty, torture, etc. are there in the F.I.R. To the misfortune of the informant, the things went awry right after the unnatural death of the young bride (sister of the informant) in her Sasural. The informant and the parents of the deceased were the residents of District Azamgarh whereas the petitioners resided in another District Chitrakoot. The copy of the judgment dated 3rd August, 2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Chitrakoot is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby he allowed the revision of respondent No. 4 against the rejection of his application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15th June, 2004. The Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to him. The allegation of respondent No. 4 has been that the petitioners were influential persons of Chitrakoot and due to their influence, justice is being throttled in this case. A probe into this aspect of the matter is not germane at this stage in these proceedings. But as the record, prima facie, shows, every cog in the machinery preferred a circuitous approach with insensitivity to the plight and agony of the informant. The application made by respondent No. 4 under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot dated 5th June, 2004 is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He made a prayer to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to order for registering his F.I.R. inter alia, saying in paragraphs No. 7 and 8 that when he and others accompanying him had gone to the Police Station for lodging the F.I.R. the same was not taken down and it was held out by the police that the petitioners were influential persons and, therefore, their F.I.R. would not be registered. On their repeated requests, the report was taken and just kept there. When he (informant respondent No. 4) again went to the Police Station on 15th April 2004, he came to know that his F.I.R. had not been registered. He then sent a registered letter dated 16th April, 2004 to Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chitrakoot and Inspector General of Police, Allahabad, but to no effect. As the police was inert in the matter, he was forced to move to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. with the prayer to get the case registered. Instead of directing for registering the case in exercise of his powers under under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., the Chief Judicial Magistrate sought a report from the police and then rejected the application moved under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. When the learned Sessions Judge remanded the case on revision being filed by respondent No. 4, the Chief Judicial Magistrate again directed for registering the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as complaint case, though the more appropriate course for him was a direction to the police to register the ease. He had ample power to do so and to direct investigation by the police. The investigation to be so ordered by him was to end up in a report by the police contemplated by Section 173, Cr.P.C.
7. It is settled law that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused (See Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768 : (AIR 2004 SC 4753 : 2004 Cri LJ 2758). Oblivious to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it is strange that the Chief Judicial Magistrate has chosen to register the application of respondent No. 4 made by him under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as complaint taking advantage of the observation by the revisional Court that he could either direct for an investigation to be made by the police or to register the application as complaint. Respondent No. 4 is running from pillar to post. Consequent upon the last order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9th August, 2004 directing the registering of his application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. as complaint ease, respondent No. 4 has again knocked the door of this Court, challenging the said order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 9th August 2004 by means of Criminal Application No. 8587 of 2004 under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that a direction be made for investigation by the police, as gleaned from paragraph 21 of the writ petition. At long last, the case has been registered because of an order dated 23rd Nov. 2004 having been passed by the S.P. Chitrakoot.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, have invited our attention to Section 210, Cr.P.C. which reads as under :
'210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence -- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the ease arising out of the police report as if both the eases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.'
9. We do not think that the aforesaid provision can come to the rescue of the petitioners in seeking the reliefs prayed for in this petition. The prayer of the respondent No. 4 right from the beginning has been that his F.I.R. be registered and case investigated. When his report was not taken down at the Police Station, he made the same prayer through the application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr. P.C. The Magistrate having not passed such an order, he could not be prevented from approaching the police authorities again for registering his F.I.R. which, had ultimately been done under the orders of the Superintendent of Police dated 23rd Nov. 2004. The question of clubbing of complaint case and the police investigated case under the provisions of Section 210, Cr. P.C. does not arise at all at this juncture because hitherto the police has not made any report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Moreover, as provided by Section 210(1), Cr. P.C. when it appears to the Magistrate that the investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him as a complaint case, he has to stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and to call for a report on the matter from the police conducting the investigation. By no stretch of imagination, the pendency of the so called complaint case on the basis of application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. made by respondent No. 4 can thwart or block the investigation in this serious offence of bride's death consequent upon the registering of F.I.R. pursuant to the order of S.P. Chitrakoot dated 23rd Nov. 2004. The stay at the appropriate stage can only be of the complaint case, and not of the proceedings on the basis of the F.I.R. now registered against the petitioners,
10. The petitioners are simply out to take advantage of non-existing hyper technicalities to obstruct the course of law. The High Court does not ordinarily enter into factual controversy in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence of bride's death, there is no ground for interference. The law is the same for rich and poor alike. The majesty of law lies in treating everyone with identical standard. The ordinary system of law has to take its own course.
11. It is established position of law that no interference would be justified if on consideration of the allegations made in the F.I.R., ingredients of the complained offence are disclosed and there is no material to show that the F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. The High Court would be entitled to examine the allegations made in the F.I.R. and would not embark upon an inquiry as to the ultimate success or otherwise of the accusation made in the F.I.R. We would refrain from saying anything more to save the expression of opinion on merits, which may be prejudicial to one or the other side.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed, meaning thereby the police is free to investigate the case crime No. 352 of 2004, under Sections 498A/304B, I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Kotwali Karvi, District Chitrakoot, as per the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to cognizable offence (s).