IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2269-2270 OF 2009
Arising out of SLP(Crl.) NOs. 8375-8376/2008)
D.K. Ganesh Babu
.. Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
.. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
These
appeals
at
the
instance
of
the
complainant/informant (the brother of the deceased, Madhu
Devi) are directed against the judgment and order dated
August 22, 2008, passed by the Madras High Court whereby it
quashed the charges under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304B/34
of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, “the IPC”) and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act framed by the
trial court against the three respondents who happened to
be the sister-in-law, the mother-in-law and the father-in-
law respectively of the deceased.
Madhu Devi was married to Naveen Kumar, the son of
respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on November 30, 2000. She
committed suicide by hanging herself on July 1, 2006.
Earlier to that also she had attempted to commit suicide in
the year, 2002. She left behind a suicide note, a copy of
which is at page 56 of the Special leave Petition and which
was placed before us a number of times.
:2:
The brother of the deceased, the appellant,
lodged the first information report at the Adayar Police
Station on July 2, 2006, in which he made allegations that
after the marriage of his sister, her husband and the three
respondents made repeated demands for dowry and in that
connection constantly harassed her and subjected her to
torture that eventually led her to commit suicide. The
police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against
the three respondents and Naveen, the husband of the
deceased. On the basis of the charge-sheet received from
the police, the trial Court framed charges against all the
four accused, including, the three respondents under
Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. At that stage, the three
respondents approached the Madras High Court for quashing
the charges framed by the trial court against them. The
Madras High Court by a lengthy judgment allowed their
applications and quashed the charges insofar as the three
respondents are concerned.
On hearing counsel for the parties and on going
through the High Court judgment coming under appeal and the
other materials on record we feel that the High Court
completely misdirected itself in delving deep into the
evidences that might be led before the trial Court, on
behalf of the prosecution as also from the side of the
defence. Undertaking an exercise based on a detailed
appreciation of evidences that might come in the course of
:3:
the trial, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that
“the prosecution had not placed any prima facie material
before the trial court in the form of the charge-sheet” to
justify subjecting the respondents to trial on charges
under sections 498A, 306, 304B/34 of the IPC and sections 3
& 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act. It, accordingly, quashed
the charges framed against them.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by
the High Court that there was no prima facie material
before the trial court to frame charges against the three
respondents and to put them up on trial. It is noted above
that Madhu Devi died within seven years of her marriage.
She died by committing suicide. Hence, the death certainly
can not be said to have occurred under normal
circumstances. We have been taken through the suicide note,
the first information report and the contents of the
charge-sheet. We do not wish to make any comments on the
veracity of the allegations made therein but we must say
that all the three documents undeniably contain
allegations of demand of dowry and Madhu Devi being
subjected to harassment and torture in connection with
those demands. Whether or not the prosecution would be
eventually able to substantiate its allegations against the
three respondents by leading cogent and reliable evidence
before the trial Court and how the prosecution case would
stand in the light of any evidence that might be led on
behalf of the defence is yet to be seen. But prima facie
:4:
there are allegations comprising all the ingredients of the
offences for which the trial court framed charges against
the respondents and there are materials which taken on
their face value would lead to the inference of the
respondents’ guilt. It is not a case which could be quashed
by the High Court even at the stage of framing of charge by
the trial court and the respondents must be made to face
the trial.
In the result we allow the appeals, set aside
the order passed by the High court and direct the trial
Court to proceed with the trial, in accordance with law.
....................J.
[AFTAB ALAM]
....................J.
[Dr.MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA]
NEW DELHI,
NOVEMBER 30, 2009.