TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 1421
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ried in February 1997. A girl child was born to the appellant in May 1998 and in 2001 the appellant gave informations on various dates to several police authorities regarding alleged torture and harassment inflicted on her by respondent nos.1 to 8 for dowry as well as for giving birth to a girl child. It is appellant's case that in April 2001 itself there was pressure by the common relatives and friends leading to appellant withdrawing her allegations against respondent no.1 who in turn withdrew Divorce Petition No. 496/2000 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order of Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 30th April 2001. The differences between the spouses got settled amicably in April-May 2001. The appellant gave birth to another girl child in August 2002 much to the dislike of accused persons. 4. The substance of the accusation in the instant complaint case is that anticipating legal action by the appellant against renewed mental torture and harassment by the respondent no.1 and his other relations named as accused, as a stratagem and outcome of a conspiracy, one of her earlier letters of complaint to some police officials which had been withdrawn by the appellant in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of the appellant and also called for record of CID investigation in the matter of FIR No.73/2002 for the purpose of perusal and evaluation. On receipt of the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed a speaking order on 02.05.2011 whereby he issued summons against accused nos.1 to 9 after finding a prima facie case on the basis of complaint petition, statement of complainant (appellant) as well as records of CID investigation on which the complainant had placed reliance. Accused nos.1 to 8 preferred one set of criminal revision and accused no.9 preferred another criminal revision before the Sessions Court at Raipur. By two separate orders passed on same date, i.e., 30.11.2011, the Sessions Court upheld the summoning order in respect of accused nos.1 to 5 but set it aside in respect of accused nos.6 to 8 and accused no.9. Against these two orders the appellant preferred criminal revision petitions whereas accused nos.1 to 5 also preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition bearing No. 45/2012 before the High Court. The High Court, by common judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 which is under appeal, dismissed both the criminal revision petitions preferred by the appellant a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge 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 that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial. 9. Learned senior advocate for the appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi has relied upon a catena of judgments such as :- (i) Bhim Lal Shah vs. Bisa Singh & Ors. [17 CWN 290]; (ii) State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540]; (iii) Riyasat Ali vs. State of U.P. [1992 Crl.L.J. 1217]; (iv) Nupur Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. [(2012) 11 SCC 465]; (v) Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. [(2012) 9 SCC 460]; (vi) Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [(2011) 11 SCC 259]; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding even at initial stage to prevent the abuse of process of law by the inferior courts. But this Court cautioned that since the powers conferred on the High Court under aforesaid provisions have no limits, hence more/due care and caution is required while invoking these powers. In paragraph 29 it was emphasized that the accused can approach the High Court "to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him". The facts in the present case are otherwise and required the High Court to exercise more caution in view of clear allegations in the complaint petition. The High Court erred in evaluating the merit of evidence for interfering with a summoning order. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon judgments in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and also in the case of Thermax Ltd. & Ors. v. K.M. Johny & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412 in support of the proposition that power to quash criminal prosecution is justified where a criminal proceeding is instituted with malafide or ulterior motives. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) this Court did indicate in para 102, seve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty for realizing the loan amount due from the complainant. On facts of that case, it was easy to hold that the complaint was clearly an abuse of judicial process and it was also found that averments and allegations in complaint did not disclose commission of any offence by appellants. The Magistrate had failed to apply his mind to the case of the appellants and the High Court had erred in not even adverting to the basic facts. The factual situation in the present case is quite otherwise. Reliance was also placed on behalf of respondents upon judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699. In that case, the accused persons pleaded for discharge before the Sessions Court which was not accepted but the High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that there was no material on the record on the basis of which any tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. This Court agreed with the views of the High Court on the basis of peculiar facts of that case showing lack of any data or material which could create a reasonable likelihood of conviction for any offe....