LexKAILASHI BAI versus AARTI ARYA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 312 A KAILASHI BAI .... v. AARTI ARYA & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2009 B APRIL 27, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Abetment of suicide and abetment of a thing - Material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court would decide the fate of the accused person -A/legations of ma/a tides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselv($S be the basis for quashing the proceedings - ~ D Exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 Cr.PC. only in exceptional "" cases and where there is prim a facie trial to be held - However, in the peculiar facts of the case no need for interference - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 306, 107. E Dhana/akshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar 1990 Supp SCC 686; State of Bihar v. P P Sharma AIR 1996 SC 309; Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill 1995 (6) SCC 194; State of Kera/av. 0. C. Kuttan AIR 1999 SC 1044; State of U.P. v. 0. ):' P. Sharma 1996 (7) SCC 705; Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh F Kumar Bhada 1997 (2) SCC 397; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 1996 SC 2983; and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 and State of Karnataka M. Devendrappa and Another 2002 (3) SCC 89 - relied on. Case Law Reference G 1990 Supp sec 686 relied on para 7 ~( AIR 1996 SC 309 relied on para 7 1995 (6) sec 194 relied on para 7 H 312 KAILASHI BAI V. AARTI ARYA & ANR. 313 ,... AIR 1999 SC 1044 relied on para 7 A . 1996 (7) sec 105 relied on para 7 , 1997 (2) sec 397 relied on para 7 AIR 1996 SC 2983 relied on para 7 B 1999 (3) sec 259 relied on para 7 '( 2002 (3) sec 89 relied on para 7 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2009 c From the Judgement and Order dated 06.09.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 5778 of 2007. ). 71 Vikas Upadhyay, B.K. Satija, for the Appellant. D Fakhruddin, Mushtaq Ahmad, Raj Kishore Chaudhary, Munwar Sultana Alam, Abdul Karim Ansari, Gulteshan Javed, Aftab Ali Khan, Vibha Datta Makhija, with him for the Respondent. -1 The Judgement of the Court was delivered by E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ---. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the F learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). Background facts, in nutshell, are as follows: G .r!'> The present respondent No.1 was married to Mukesh Arya (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in the year 2003. According to the prosecution, the deceased was working as Civil Judge and was posted at the relevant time at ltarsi. Respondent No.1 's in laws did not approve of the marriage as H 314' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 7 S_C_R A the respondent No_ 1 belonged to an upper caste while the deceased belonged to_ the Scheduled Caste_ A child was born to them_ The deceased conStJmed some poisonous substance and lost his life on 18/3/2007_ B It was· the case of the prosecution that during enquiry it surfaced that the respondent No.1 accused used to harass the deceased and subject to mental cruelty as she belonged to higher caste and she did not like association of deceased with ~- his parents and relatives. This was stated to be the ground of c suicide and the accused abetted the suicide. Charge sheet was filed in Court of Magistrate_ An application under Section 482 of the Code was filed questioning the order passed by learned Magistrate. The High Court took note of the fact that the present • D appellant's statement on a fair reading did not disclose any offence. The High Court noted even at the time of marriage, the " parties knew caste of the deceased and the accused and therefore the question of that being a factor for harassing the deceased. Leading to his suicide cannot be believed. It was also found that there was no material to show that the accused E wanted the deceased to stay separately from his parents. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed. It was held that ingredients of Section 306 were not ¥' established. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that F the parameters of exercise of power under Sec.482 of the Code was not kept in mind by the High Court. In any event, it was not a matter which was to be dealt with in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.