LexONKAR NATH MISHRA & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. A ONKAR NATH MISHRA & ORS. .... _ v. ST ATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. DECEMBER 14, 2007 .i B [ASHOK BHAN AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] \M > Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 498A and 406-Framing of charges under-FIR by wife alleging commission of offence u/s 498A and 406134 by in-laws and husband, on basis of complaint before Women Cell-Charges framed ,. against in-laws and husband u/s 498A and 406134-Challenge to- - Held: There was no allegation of entrustment of property by D complainant-wife to her in-laws and husband and its misappropriation by them-Also no allegation of harassment of wife by in-laws with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand except husband-Thus, charges uls 406 against in-laws and husband, and uls 498A against in-laws quashed-However, charges framed against husband u/s 498A E upheld. - ss. 498 A and 406-lngredients for-Explained Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss 227, 228, 239, 240and 245 -Duty of court while framing of charges-General guidelines-Held: F Court is to evaluate materials on record to find out if facts at their 1 face value disclose existence of ingredients for constituting the alleged offence-It is to consider whether there is a ground for presuming that offence has been committed and not that the ground for convicting the accused is made out-Probative value of materials on record G cannot be gone into. There was some matrimonial dispute between the complainant- wife and the appellant no. 3-husband. The complainant filed a complaint in the Crime against Women Cell against appellant no 1 and 2-in laws and appellant no 3, alleging harassment by them. H 716 I } ONKARNATHMISHRAv. STATE 717 However, the parties entered into a compromise and the complainant A joined her husband. Next month the complainant came back to her paternal home for her delivery. The complainant then filed another complaint against the appellants. She recorded a statement alleging misbehavior on part of her in-laws and dowry demand made by them and that they refused to return her Stridhan. FIR was lodged under B sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. against the appellants. The charge sheet was filed. The Metropolitan Magistrate held that no case was made out against all the appellants u/s 406 and appellant no. 1 and 2 for offences u/s 498A and discharged all of them. In Revision Petition, the Sessions Court held that the case u/s 406 and 498A was made out and directed the trial court to frame charges accordingly. C Appellants then filed Criminal Revision Petition for quashing the charge sheet and consequential proceedings arising out of FIR. High Court upheld the order of Sessions Court. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. At the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the E probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive F opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. [Para 11] [723-D-F) State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, [1977) 2 SCC 699; State G of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors., [1996] 4 SCC 659 and State of MP. v. Mohanlal Soni, [2000) 6 SCC 338, relied on. 2. According to Section 405 I.P.C., the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any H 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. A manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts itto his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction oflaw prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or hnplied, made by him touching such discharge, B or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus, in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are inv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.