http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DEEPTI @ ARATI RAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AKHIL RAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/09/1995

BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) ANAND, A.S. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 751        JT 1995 (7)   175  1995 SCALE  (5)328

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      Leave granted.      The appellant  made a complaint to the officer Incharge of Women  Police Station, Bilaspur alleging demand of dowry, harassment and  cruelty by  respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 being the husband,  father-in-law and  mother-in-law respectively. The police  after making investigation, filed a charge sheet against the  said respondents  in the  Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bilaspur, indicating commission of an offence under  section 498(A)  IPC. The  learned  Magistrate after  supplying  copies  of  the  charge  sheet  and  other documents and  hearing the  learned Advocate for the accused framed a  charge under section 498(A). The order framing the charge was  challenged by  the accused  by  filing  Criminal Revision No.260  of 1993  in the  Court  of  Addl.  Sessions Judge, Bilaspur.  The learned  Addl. Judge  was of  the view that there was sufficient material to frame a charge against all  the  accused  and  therefore,  dismissed  the  Revision Application. Thereafter  the  accused  approached  the  High Court under  section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to quash the said charge and the proceedings instituted upon the basis of the aforesaid  charge sheet.  The High Court referred to its earlier  order   dt.  29.10.93   whereby  respondent  No.1’s application for  quashing the  charge was  rejected. It then proceeded to  consider the  application of  respondents no.2 and 3  for quashing  the charge. In its order the High Court has observed that:           "On  perusal   of  the  record,  it      transpires that no specific overt act is      attributed to  the applicants  2 and  3,      who are  in-laws of  the informant.  The      allegation that  she  was  subjected  to      physical   and    mental   torture   are      attributed to  her husband who is not an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    applicant in this case."      It then  referred to  the concession made by the Deputy Government Advocate  that "there  is no material for framing of charge  against  the  present  applicants  under  section 498(A) IPC." On these grounds it allowed the application and quashed the  charge  framed  under  section  498(A)  against applicants nos.2  and 3.  Feeling aggrieved  by the judgment and order  passed by the High Court, the wife has approached this Court.      It  was  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant-wife that  the finding  recorded by the High Court that there  is no  allegation  of  beating,  harassment  and demand against  respondents 2 and 3 is because of misreading the complaint  and the  other material on record. In view of this contention, we have gone through the complaint filed by the appellant  and also  the statements  of  Suresh  Chandra Verma, father of the appellant, Devesh, elder brother of the appellant and  Ramesh,  cousin  of  the  appellant.  In  her complaint the  appellant has  clearly stated  that three  or four months  after the  marriage her husband, her father-in- law and  mother-in-law started  harassing her as VCR was not given to  her in  dowry. She  has further  stated  that  her father-in-law and  mother-in-law used to demand Rs.6500/- in cash. She has also stated that she was beaten by her husband on 27.7.90,  4.10.90, 12.1.91, 28.1.91, 31.1.91, 12.2.91 and 8.3.92 and  that her mother-in-law and father-in-law used to join her  husband in  beating her and abusing her relatives. She has  also stated  that her  mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband  had not  given food  to her  on 24/25th  April, 1992. Devesh,  in his  statement, has stated that respondent no.1 used  to beat  his sister  after taking  liquor and her mother-in-law and  father-in-law used  to harass her. Ramesh has also stated in his statement that he was informed by the appellant that  she was harassed by her husband and parents- in-law. He  has further  stated that  she was asked to bring money for VCR by her husband and by the parents-in-law. From what we have pointed out, it becomes apparent that there was sufficient material for the learned Magistrate for framing a charge under  section 498(A)  even against  respondents no.2 and 3.  It further appears to us that the learned Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State before the High Court made  the concession without going through the record. We are  constrained to  observe that  the learned Government Advocate  should   have  conducted   the  case   in  a  more responsible manner  considering the  nature of the case. The High Court  also should have taken care to verify the record before  accepting   the  concession   made  by  the  learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the  first one  by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent  power under section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not  legal and  just it  will have  to be  set aside.  We accordingly  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  impunged judgment and  order passed  by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate  Ist Class,  Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No.69 of 1993.