LexRAN SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"'' - i [2008] 2 S.C.R. 216 ~ A RAN SINGH AND ANR. --r II. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2008) I JANUARY 30, 2008 • B I ' [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] r-.. """' Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and , L 149 - Offences. under - Complaint against husband his r- ~- c parents, brother and sister - Initiation of prosecution - In revision Sessions Judge directed prosecution· of husband alone - High Court holding the parents of husband responsible for cruelty - On appeal, held: Order of High Court, so far as parents of the husband, is concerned is presumptuous and D without assigning any reasons - Hence set aside to that extent. Judgment - Recording of reasons in - requirement of - ~ I~ Discussed. Words and Phrases - 'Dowry' - Meaning of in the context ~...., of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. .. E Predecessor of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint ulss. 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC against husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and married sister-in-law of respondent No. 2. He alleged that F they were responsible for harassing respondent No. 2 for dowry. Judicial Magistrate proceeded against all the A ; accused. In Revision Petitions filed by the accused, ' .. Sessions Judge held .that only husband could be ~ ~ proceeded against, as no case was made out against the rest of the accused. High Court upheld the order of >-- G 1~ Sessions Judge, so far as husband, brother-in-law and I sister-in-law were concerned. But regarding father-in-law ~ ... and mother-in-law it held .that they were to be prosecuted I observing that they could misappropriate articles of H 216 ~ .+ RAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 217 ANDANR. dowry and could practice cruelty. Hence the present A appeal by father-in-law and mother-in-law. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court has fallen in grave error while observing that present appellants "could B misappropriate" and "who can practice cruelty". The conclusions are presumptuous. Sessions Judge by a well reasoned order had held that there was no material to show that demand for any dowry was made and an attempt was made to rope in many persons. When the High Court was c interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought to have indicated the reasons necessitating such interference. [Para SJ [221-F-G; 222-A] 2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set D forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or E conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the F power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why G the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Paras 9 H 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A and 1 O] [222-B, D, E, F, G] Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4 LCR 120 - referred to. B 3. The word "dowry" is defined in Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending c period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the marriage of the said parties". Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not cov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.