Deepika @ Sumitra Bhandari and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, 1973, section 482 - penal code, 1860, sections 302/201/34--quashing of cognizance of offence there under--petitioner accused alleging dowry demand and cruel beating by deceased husband and in-laws--fir named and cognizance taken by magistrate on basis of primary investigation by police--section 482, cr pc not requires establishment of allegations--decision can be taken on fir/complaint only--high court was wrong in examining defence in detail--charge-sheet prima facie establishing offence--no justification for quashing of cognizance. - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 5. it is well settled that in a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, for quashing of cognizance the high court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations are likely to be established or not. it is equally well settled that the high court is not justified in examining the defence in detail and record a finding whether the accused are guilty or not.orderm.y. eqbal. j.1. heard mr. p.p.n. roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and mr. birendra kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.2. in the instant petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.6.2002 passed in baliapur police station case no. 52/2001, corresponding to g.r. case no. 2420 of 2001 whereby the chief judicial magistrate, dhanbad took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under sections 302/201/34 of the indian penal code.3. the allegation, inter alia, made in the first information report is that on 1.9.2001 three persons, namely, ajit pramanik, shiv prasad mahato and manik pramanik informed the informant that his son, deepak bhandari was missing from his in-laws' house since the last night. the informant started searching for his son and when he was unable to trace him out, he alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners, at several times, threatened the informant and his deceased son. subsequently on 3.9.2001 the informant found the dead body of his son, deepak bhandari hanging from a branch of the tree. the informant, therefore, alleged that the accused persons have committed the murder of his son and hanged the dead body in one of the branches of the tree.3. mr. roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reason leading to the filing of the criminal case was that the deceased was married with petitioner no. 1 and the parents of petitioner no. 1 gave cash of rs. 90,000/-. at the matrimonial house of the petitioner the deceased husband and father-in-law and other family members assaulted her and demanded additional dowry, motor cycle etc. learned counsel submitted that first charge sheet was submitted against three persons and, thereafter, second and third charge sheets were submitted against some more persons. learned counsel submitted that no material has come in the case diary so far these petitioners are concerned. learned counsel relied upon a decision of the supreme court reported in air 1996 sc 938 and submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be quashed.4. admittedly direct allegations have been made against the petitioners and they are named in the first information report. the investigating agency, after collecting materials during investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and on that basis cognizance has been taken by the chief judicial magistrate.5. it is well settled that in a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, for quashing of cognizance the high court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations are likely to be established or not. the court is guided by the allegations made in the fir or in the complaint. it is equally well settled that the high court is not justified in examining the defence in detail and record a finding whether the accused are guilty or not. the only question to be considered is whether the first information report discloses the offence alleged. admittedly the deceased went to his in-law's place and he was found dead and the dead body was found hanging on a tree. the defence taken by the petitioners is that there was demand of dowry by the deceased and his parents and petitioner no. 1 was subjected to assault and cruelty. the question, therefore, as to how and by whom the deceased was murdered, cannot be gone into in a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. charge sheet is a prima facie evidence constituting offence and in the instant case charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners also. in my opinion, therefore, there is no justification in quashing the order taking cognizance in exercise of powers under section 482 cr pc.6. for the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.Y. Eqbal. J.

1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. In the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.6.2002 passed in Baliapur police station case No. 52/2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2420 of 2001 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation, inter alia, made in the first information report is that on 1.9.2001 three persons, namely, Ajit Pramanik, Shiv Prasad Mahato and Manik Pramanik informed the informant that his son, Deepak Bhandari was missing from his in-laws' house since the last night. The informant started searching for his son and when he was unable to trace him out, he alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners, at several times, threatened the informant and his deceased son. Subsequently on 3.9.2001 the informant found the dead body of his son, Deepak Bhandari hanging from a branch of the tree. The informant, therefore, alleged that the accused persons have committed the murder of his son and hanged the dead body in one of the branches of the tree.

3. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reason leading to the filing of the criminal case was that the deceased was married with petitioner No. 1 and the parents of petitioner No. 1 gave cash of Rs. 90,000/-. At the matrimonial house of the petitioner the deceased husband and father-in-law and other family members assaulted her and demanded additional dowry, motor cycle etc. Learned counsel submitted that first charge sheet was submitted against three persons and, thereafter, second and third charge sheets were submitted against some more persons. Learned counsel submitted that no material has come in the case diary so far these petitioners are concerned. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 938 and submitted that the order of cognizance is liable to be quashed.

4. Admittedly direct allegations have been made against the petitioners and they are named in the first information report. The investigating agency, after collecting materials during investigation, submitted charge sheet against the petitioners and on that basis cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

5. It is well settled that in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of cognizance the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations are likely to be established or not. The Court is guided by the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. It is equally well settled that the High Court is not justified in examining the defence in detail and record a finding whether the accused are guilty or not. The only question to be considered is whether the first information report discloses the offence alleged. Admittedly the deceased went to his in-law's place and he was found dead and the dead body was found hanging on a tree. The defence taken by the petitioners is that there was demand of dowry by the deceased and his parents and petitioner No. 1 was subjected to assault and cruelty. The question, therefore, as to how and by whom the deceased was murdered, cannot be gone into in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge sheet is a prima facie evidence constituting offence and in the instant case charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners also. In my opinion, therefore, there is no justification in quashing the order taking cognizance in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr PC.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed.