2015 (8) TMI 1520 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds validity of process, emphasizes trial importance, clarifies legal interpretation of Section 203 IPC

Arpita Mukherjee nee Chaterjee Versus Deva Prosad Ganguly and Ors.

Arpita Mukherjee nee Chaterjee Versus Deva Prosad Ganguly and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Amicable Settlement Attempts2. Police Report Necessity3. Issuance of Process under Sections 203/511 IPC4. Mandatory Recording of FIR5. Prima Facie Case and Issuance of Summons6. Jurisdiction of Courts and Enquiry Procedures7. Legal Interpretation of Section 203 IPCIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Amicable Settlement Attempts:The judgment discusses multiple attempts by the courts to mediate an amicable settlement between the parties. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and the 8th Judicial Magistrate (JM) made efforts to resolve the dispute informally, but these attempts were unsuccessful due to the adamant nature of both parties. The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court noted a brief period where the parties appeared to have reconciled, but this proved to be temporary.2. Police Report Necessity:The 8th JM, considering the enmity between the parties, deemed it necessary to call for a police report under Section 91 CrPC. This was to ensure a careful approach in deciding the case due to the inimical relationship between the parties.3. Issuance of Process under Sections 203/511 IPC:The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Sections 203/511 IPC, which originated from a complaint alleging an attempt to snatch her gold chain and outrage her modesty. The 10th JM, after examining the complainant, found a prima facie case and directed the issuance of process, including summons.4. Mandatory Recording of FIR:The petitioner argued that the police had a mandatory obligation to record an FIR based on her complaint, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. The court, however, found that the absence of an FIR did not preclude the police from conducting a preliminary enquiry or reporting to the court.5. Prima Facie Case and Issuance of Summons:The petitioner contended that the issuance of process was mechanical and lacked proper examination of the allegations. The court referred to the judgments in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and S. Khushboo, emphasizing that issuance of process is a serious matter requiring careful scrutiny. The court upheld the issuance of process, finding that the 10th JM had sufficient grounds to proceed.6. Jurisdiction of Courts and Enquiry Procedures:The court addressed the petitioner's argument that the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to call for a police report under Sections 403 and 91 CrPC. The court concluded that the trial and revisionist courts could legally call for a police report to assist in their enquiry, aiming to discover the truth in the dispute.7. Legal Interpretation of Section 203 IPC:The court analyzed the applicability of Section 203 IPC, which deals with giving false information about an offence. The petitioner argued that Section 354 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) was not covered under Section 203 IPC. The court, however, found that the Explanation to Section 203 IPC created an exclusive category of offences, and excluding Section 354 IPC would be contrary to the legislative intent.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitioner's application to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of discovering the truth and allowing the trial to proceed. The court found that the petitioner had already entered a plea, and interfering at this stage would be inappropriate. The judgment underscores the courts' efforts to mediate and resolve the dispute while ensuring a thorough legal process.