(Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)
Asharam Sharma ___________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others ________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. 1478 of 2024 (Arising Out of Slp(Criminal) No. 15032/2023), decided on March 11, 2024
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereby respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been discharged from charges framed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior in Case No. 132 of 2021 vide its order dated 09.03.2022.
3. The appellant is the complainant in FIR No. 177/2020 dated 03.03.2023 under Sections 304B, 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior, M.P.
4. The sister of the appellant, Anju (hereinafter ‘deceased’) was married to one Gautam Sharma @ Bholu on 05.06.2015. According to the appellant, a total of Rs. 10 lakhs were spent on the wedding festivities including a cash amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, as well as other household items such as clothing, utensils and other items, which were given by the deceased’s family during the marriage ceremony.
5. The deceased was living with her husband, mother-in-law (hereinafter, ‘respondent no. 3’), father-in-law and brother-in-law (hereinafter, ‘respondent no. 2’) in her matrimonial home. In 2018, her husband, respondent no. 2, father-in-law and other relatives were arrested in a murder case. It is stated that deceased’s husband remained in judicial custody till 2020 during which, respondent no. 3 and deceased’s sister-in-law Mamta, allegedly subjected her to physical assault and harassment. After being released on bail, it is alleged that respondent no. 2 also troubled the deceased on the pretext of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. On 23.03.2020, the appellant received a call from respondent no. 2, informing him that his sister had allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself at the matrimonial home.
6. Subsequently, the subject FIR was registered and respondent no. 2 was arrested. During the investigation, respondent no. 3 and co-accused Mamta Sharma were absconding. Accordingly, absconded memos were statedly issued on 15.03.2020, 19.03.2020, 21.03.2020 and 23.03.2020. During investigation, the post-mortem report of the deceased was obtained, indicating the cause of death as asphyxia resulting from hanging.
7. Based on the witness statements provided by the deceased’s immediate family, i.e. her parents, sibling and the neighbor (Mr. Umesh Upadhyay), as well as considering the circumstantial evidence, chargesheet was filed against Respondent No. 2 under sections 304B, 498A, 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on 26.05.2020. Later, on the same day, respondent no. 3 and co-accused Mamta Sharma were arrested and a supplementary chargesheet was filed on 29.08.2020. The chargesheet implicated respondent nos. 2, 3 and co-accused Mamta on the ground that the deceased died under unusual and suspicious circumstances at her in-law’s house within seven years of marriage.
8. Ld. VI Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior, considering the evidence presented by the prosecution, framed charges on 09.03.2022, in which the offence under Section 302 of IPC was also added. These charges were challenged by the co-accused Mamta by preferring a Criminal Revision No. 1254/2022, however, the same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 06.04.2022.
9. Subsequently, respondent nos. 2 and 3 also took a chance and filed Criminal Revision No. 2036/2023 before the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 09.03.2022 of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, District Gwalior, whereby charges were framed against them. The High Court vide the impugned order has allowed the said petition and discharged respondent nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the ongoing criminal proceedings.
10. We are constrained to observe that in the absence of any reason whatsoever, it is difficult to find out as what weighed in the mind of the High Court to prompt it to annul the trial proceedings. The extent of scrutiny permissible when a criminal revision application for discharge is being considered, has attracted this Court’s attention on a number of occasions. In Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of U.P., (2022) 15 SCC 720, a 3-judge bench of this court emphasized that the High Court, when exercising its revisional jurisdiction, should exercise it with caution. The discretion granted to the High Court must be used with care and wisdom to ensure the efficient and timely administration of the criminal justice system. However, there should not be a complete hands-off approach. Rather, there should be intervention, especially in exceptional circumstances, to prevent the possibility of serious prejudice to the rights of a citizen.
11. This court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, underscored the imperative for caution in exercising revisional jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the court must remain vigilant, ensuring that the exercise of such jurisdiction does not precipitate injustice on its face. While laying down the parameters in Amit Kapoor (supra) that “quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution”, this Court held that when the elements of the alleged offense are prima facie satisfied, then the court should lean towards letting the prosecution continue rather than prematurely quashing the charges at the nascent stage.
12. The impugned order though cites a decision of this Court, however, we fail to understand, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as to how the cited decision has any relevance with the nature of charges framed against respondent nos. 2 and 3.
13. All that we can very firmly say is that the impugned order is totally cryptic and sans any reasons whatsoever. This court in UPSC v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, (2021) 4 SCC 516, noted that reasons form the essence of a judicial decision. Without them, one is left merely with an empty shell, offering no solace or satisfaction to the litigants involved in the legal process. We must emphasis that an order which has serious ramifications on the criminal justice system, must display due application of mind and ought to be supported with sound reasons.
14. In all fairness, the appellant has raised a plea under section 401(2) CrPC, contending that his inclusion as a party in the revision petition was essential and the failure to implead the complainant was a fatal defect. Since we are inclined to remand the case to the High Court for a fresh adjudication, we refrain from expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case.
15. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 10.05.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
16. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.04.2024.
17. The High Court is requested to decide the revision petition as early as possible and preferably within eight weeks.
———
