News Ticker

Balveer Singh and Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr, on 10th May, 2016; Supreme Court of India: Case Brief – Read Judgement

When application for adding other accused to case, was already rejected by Magistrate while committing the case to Sessions Court, then Sessions Court can in revisional jurisdiction either suo motu, accept such application

Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2016
Bench: Justice A. K. Sikri; Justice R. K. Agrawal

Case Brief: In the present appeal, which is preferred against order of the High Court in the revision petition. The appellants were parents of one-Abhimanyu who was the husband of deceased-Renu. Deceased found dead within ten months of wedding by Asphyxia due to hanging. The father of deceased-wife lodge an FIR alleging that Abhimanyu and his parents caused death for not satiating the dowry demands of the accused persons. However, Police when filed charge- sheet, they charged only Abhimanyu for committing the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, deceased’s father filed an application before Magistrate for taking cognizance against the parents-Appellants and Abhimanyu under section 304-B and 498-A of the Code. But his application not survived and as the matter was remanded to the Sessions Court, he made another similar application, which was allowed by that court. Feeling aggrieved, appellants and Abhimanyu preferred to move to High Court, which has remanded the matter back to the Sessions court with directions to hear the parties and pass further orders, however, Sessions court again allowed application. The order was again challenged by the Appellants in revision petition, and High Court dismissed the petition as such present appeal is preferred.

The present bench here observed a question for consideration that ‘whether the Court of Sessions was empowered to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Code, when similar application to this effect was rejected by the Magistrate.’ The bench observed that when application of complainant was firstly rejected by the Magistrate, then it was duly considered by the Magistrate. The situation in this case is, thus, not where the charge-sheet implicated the appellants and appellants contended that they are wrongly implicated. Also bench found that the Police itself had mentioned in its final report that case against the appellants had not been made out. Also, when the application before the Magistrate was filed, it was replied by the appellants and after due hearing of the arguments, it was rejected by Magistrate. As such, the Magistrate’s order is here considered as was passed with due application of mind and it was playing an ‘active role’ in the process. But, the sessions court’s revisional power being suo motu was considered in this case, as such, the bench said that, the Sessions court after giving proper opportunity to the appellants decided to try them for such offences, and this order cannot be interfered with. As such, appeal was dismissed by this bench.

Read the Judgement: Balveer Singh and Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr

Leave a Reply