SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 09-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 1034 
SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1803 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 9, 2012 
rr.s. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.239 - Ambit of -
C Approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the 
powers vested in it u/s.239 CrPC - Discussed - Matrimonial 
case - Allegations of harassment for dowry and mental and 
physical torture by wife against husband (appellant no.3) and 
parents-in-law (appellant nos. 1 and 2) - Cognizance by Court 
D uls.498A - Application by appellants for discharge u/s.239 
CrPC - Dismissed by trial Court - Justification of - Held: 
Justified - Whether or not the allegations were true is a matter 
which could not be determined at the stage of framing of 
charges - Any such determination can take place only at the 
E conclusion of the trial - Nature of the a/legations against the 
appellants too specific to be ignored at least at the stage of 
framing of charges -
Courts below therefore justified in 
refusing to discharge the appellants. 
Appellant No.3 is the husband and appellants No.1 
F and 2 are the parents-in-law of respondent no.2. 
Respondent no.2 alleged that the appellants were 
harassing her for dowry and subjecting her to physical 
and mental torture. Respondent No.2's further case is that 
on 10th December, 2006 she was forced into a car by the 
G appellants who then abandoned her at a deserted place 
on a lonely road at night and threatened to kill her if she 
returned to her matrimonial home. The jurisdictional 
police filed closure report to which respondent no.2 fifed 
a protest petition. On the basis of the protest petition, the 
H 
1034 
SHEORAJ SINGH AHLAWAT & ORS. v. STATE OF 1035 
UTIAR PRADESH & ANR. 
Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the A 
appellants under Section 498A IPC. 
The appellants thereafter filed application for 
discharge under Section 239 CrPC contending that the 
accusations of dowry harassment as also the alleged 
8 
incident of 10th December, 2006 were false. The 
application for discharge was dismissed by the trial Court 
holding that the grounds urged for discharge could be 
considered only after evidence was adduced in the case. 
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Criminal Revision 
C 
which was dismissed by the High Court and therefore the 
instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The case at hand being a warrant case is o 
governed by Section 239 Cr.P.C. for purposes of 
determining whether the accused or any one of them 
deserved to be discharged. A plain reading of Section 239 
CrPC would show that the Court trying the case can 
direct discharge only for reasons to be recorded by it and 
only if it considers the charge against the accused to be 
groundless. Section 240 CrPC provides for framing of a 
charge if, upon consideration of the police report and the 
documents sent therewith and making such examination, 
E 
if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, 
the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for 
F 
presuming that the accused has committed an offence 
triable under Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is 
competent to try and which can be adequately punished 
by him. [Paras 10, 11] [1043-B-E-G] 
1.2. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the 
court is required to evaluate the material and documents 
G 
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 
H 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 
A offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go 
deep into the 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 
B has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion 
founded on material which leads the court to form a 
presumptive 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 
c the commission of that offence. [Para 11] [1044-C-F] 
1.3. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of 
charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. 
The submissions of the accused has to be confined to 
the material produced by the police. Clearly the law is that 
D at 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.