2020 (2) TMI 1520 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rules on quashing charges: Focus on Dowry Prohibition Act

Arun Singh and Ors. Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

Arun Singh and Ors. Versus State of U.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the charge sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties.2. Whether the allegations made in the FIR constitute the commission of an offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Whether the allegations made in the FIR constitute the commission of an offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Refusal to Quash the Charge Sheet on the Ground of Compromise:The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the CrPC, challenging the charge sheet against them. The High Court directed the accused to surrender and apply for bail, which would be considered in light of relevant legal precedents. The Supreme Court noted that while the offences under Section 493 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the High Court has the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings if it serves the ends of justice. However, the Court emphasized that such power should be exercised cautiously, particularly in cases involving serious offences with a significant societal impact. The Supreme Court concluded that the offences in question are against society and cannot be quashed merely on the ground of compromise between the parties.2. Allegations under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code:Section 493 IPC pertains to cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage. The Supreme Court emphasized that for an offence under this section to be constituted, it must be demonstrated that a man deceitfully caused a woman to believe she was lawfully married to him, leading to cohabitation or sexual intercourse. The Court found that the FIR did not contain allegations of any inducement or deceit leading the victim to believe she was lawfully married to the appellant. The allegations in the FIR merely stated that the appellant misled the victim by suggesting their marriage was finalized, which does not meet the criteria for Section 493 IPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the charge sheet insofar as it pertained to Section 493 IPC.3. Allegations under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act:Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act penalizes the giving, taking, or abetting the giving or taking of dowry, while Section 4 penalizes the demand for dowry. The FIR contained specific allegations that the appellants demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs in dowry, which the complainant could not fulfill. The Supreme Court noted that these allegations clearly constitute an offence under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under these sections, and therefore, the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act could not be quashed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the charge sheet under Section 493 IPC due to the lack of necessary allegations to constitute the offence. However, the Court upheld the charge sheet under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. The appeal was thus partly allowed, quashing the charge sheet under Section 493 IPC while dismissing the appeal concerning the charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act.