LexSONU GUPTA versus DEEPAK GUPTA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1069 SONU GUPTA v. DEEPAK GUPTA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 285-287 of 2015) FEBRUARY 11, 2015. [ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] ·~- A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 190 - Matrimonial dispute - Complaint of dowry harassment by appellant-wife C - Subsequently withdrawn and settlement between the couple - In the instant complaint, allegation of wife that earlier letter of complaint which was withdrawn by her was tampered and a photocopy of such undated complaint was got registered by respondents-husband and in-laws with the help of some police D officials and an FIR filed at their instance portraying that it was filed by the appellant - The accusation of the appellant was that the said FIR was neither filed by her nor signed by her and it facilitated her husband and his relations to obtain anticipatory bail in the dowry case filed by her - CID E investigation in favour of appellant - Summoning orders - High Court set aside summoning orders and remitted the matter to the Magistrate requiring the appellant to produce alleged documents which could prove forgery - Held: Magistrate committed no error in summoning the accused F persons - At the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or to find out whether prima facie case was made out for summoning the accused persons - At this stage, the Magistrate is not required to G consider the defence version 'or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the appellant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the 1069 H 1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A materials would lead to conviction or not - Summoning order restored. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The cognizance is taken of the offence and B not the offender. At the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage and not at C the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds D that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. The order ·of the Magistrate suffers from no illegality. The specific case of the appellant that FIR was registered on an undated photocopy of a petition attributed to the appellant but not bearing her original E signature could not have been rejected by the Magistrate at the present stage especially in view of the report of investigation by the CID which was also called for and there being no dispute that the FIR was registered only on the basis of a photocopy on which the signature was F not in original and, therefore, the High Court grossly erred in exercise of its jurisdiction by directing the appellant/ complainant to lead further evidence and produce the original documents to show forgery. The High Court fell into error of evaluating the merits of the defence case and ., G other submissions advanced on behalf of the accused which were not appropriate for consideration at the stage of taking cognizance and issuing summons. [Paras 8, 10, 11] (1076-D-F; 1078-A-C; 1077-G-H] H SONU GUPTA v. DEEPAK GUPTA & ORS. 1071 State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. A (1) sec 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - relied on. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. v. K. M. Johny & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412: 2011 (14) SCR 154; M.N. Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 682:2009 (13) SCR 444; B State of Kamataka v. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699: 1977 (3) SCR 113 - Distinguished. Bhim Lal Shah v. Bisa Singh & Ors. 17 CWN 290; State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 : 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 548; Riyasat Ali v. State of U.P. 1992 C Crl.L.J. 1217; Nupur Ta/war v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2012) 11 SCC 465: 2012 (6) SCR 723; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 : 2012 (7) SCR 988; Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2011) 11 sec 259 : 2011 (3) SCR 1116; MEDCHL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.