Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419 of 2008), Criminal Appeal Nos. 726-727 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6061-6062) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 728-729 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6136-6137 of 2008). Case: 1. Manoj Narain Agrawal, 2. Shashi Agrawal and Anr., 3. State of Uttarakhand and etc. Vs 1. Shashi Agrawal and Ors., 2. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., 3. Shashi Agrawal and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5419 of 2008), Criminal Appeal Nos. 726-727 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6061-6062) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 728-729 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6136-6137 of 2008) |
| Counsel | For Appearing Parties: L.P. Nathani, A.G. Uttaranchal, Sushil Kumar and Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., C.D. Singh, Bhupendra Pratap Singh, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey, Sunny Chaudhary, Aditya Singh, Aditya Kumar, Minakshi Kumar, Aarohi Bhalla, Pravesh Khanna, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Subodh Patil, Saroub Bhatia, Sujata Kurdukar and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advs. |
| Judges | S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 4; Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 409, 427, 498A, 504, 506 and 452; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Sections 169, 170, 173(1), 173(8), 205, 313 and 482; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 - Section 173 |
| Citation | JT 2009 (6) SC 192 , 2009 (5) SCALE 535 , (2009) 6 SCC 385 |
| Judgement Date | April 15, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These three appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The parties hereto are related to each other.
Indisputably in relation to an incident which took place on or about 4.11.1999, two First Information Reports were lodged; one on 4.11.1999 and the other on the next day, i.e., 5.11.1999. The first FIR was lodged by Meenaxi Agrawal, (for short, "Meenaxi") inter alia, alleging that Manoj Narain Agrawal (for short, "Manoj") along with forty others raided their farm house and attacked Shashi Agrawal (for short, "Shashi") and Meenaxi (Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6061-6062 of 2008) as also staff members thereof as a result whereof one R.K. Yadav, an employee suffered grievous injuries. FIR No. 960/99 in relation to the said purported incident was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, and 506, of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") at the Kichha Police Station. The accused were allegedly arrested on the spot by the local police.
Another FIR was, however, lodged by Manoj (Appellant in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5419 of 2008) alleging that D.S. Sirohi, Manager of Parag Farm, Kichha uttered filthy language over his mobile calling names to mother, sister and also threatened to kill him and when he reached there, some guards of the Farm, namely, Hans Pal, Munna Lal, Dharmender, etc. opened fire at him indiscriminately in order to kill him on the order of D.S. Sirohi, Manager of Farm, R.K. Yadav and Meenaxi. One pellet hit him near his heart. It was also stated that he was mercilessly beaten up by some of the employees of Meenaxi. The second complaint was registered as FIR No. 960A/99. The FIR lodged by Manoj contained two principal allegations, viz., (a) overt acts on the part of the accused as a result whereof he suffered grievous injuries; and (b) forgery of some documents on the basis whereof some orders had been obtained by them in getting their names mutated in the revenue record.
4. On the basis of the said FIRs, investigations were carried out. Upon completion thereof, a charge sheet was filed in relation to the case arising out of FIR No. 960/99 lodged by Meenaxi against Manoj and 39 others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 427, 506 and 307 of the IPC; but a final report dated 29.11.1999 was filed in respect of FIR No. 960A/99, stating that no case was made out against Shashi and Meenaxi.
5. However, on or about 1.12.1999, Manoj had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7230 of 1999 in the High Court of Allahabad praying for a fair investigation and also for appointment of another investigating officer in the Crime No. 960A/99. By reason of an order dated 1.12.1999, the High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the DIG (Kumaun Region) Udham Singh Nagar, Nainital to ensure fair and impartial investigation with respect to the Crime Case No. 960A/99 by another agency. In view of the said order, the final report dated 29.11.1999 was sent to the office of Circle Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police) on 3.12.1999. The Deputy Superintendent of Police sought for the opinion of the Senior Public Prosecutor on or about 13.12.1999. It was opined that as a part of the allegation has not been investigated into, a further investigation would be required. On apprehending their arrest, Shashi and Meenaxi filed a Writ Petition No. 310 of 2000 before the High Court of Allahabad praying for stay of their arrest in Crime No. 960A/99.
6. On or about 3.4.2000, an application was moved by Shashi before the Chief Secretary UP and DG, UP Police praying the investigation to be conducted by CBCID. As no action was taken thereupon, another Writ Petition No. 1747 of 2000 was filed by Shashi before the Allahabad High Court with a prayer that the investigation in Crime Case No. 960A/99 be directed to be carried out by CBCID.
Indisputably, a direction was issued by the State of U.P that Crime No. 960A/99 be investigated by CBCID pursuant whereto the investigation was taken over by CBCID. On or about 11.5.2000, the investigation in Crime Case No. 960A/99 was transferred from CBCID to local police by the State of U.P. Shashi thereafter filed a Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2000 in the High Court with a prayer for direction to set aside the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the State of U.P. Manoj also filed a Writ Petition No. 3848 of 2000 questioning the order dated 6.4.2000 whereby the investigation was transferred by the State Government from local police to CBCID. On or about 4.7.2000, the High Court passed an interim order in Writ Petition No. 2996 of 2006 staying the arrest of the petitioners. All the connected matters with Writ Petition No. 310 of 2000 were disposed of by the High Court on or about 13.9.2000 directing the investigating agency to carry out the investigation fairly and honestly and not to take any coercive steps against the parties.
7. A Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 4054-4057 of 2000 was filed by Meenaxi and Anr. before this Court questioning the order dated 13.9.2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 310 of 2000 and other connected matters. This Court by reason of an order dated 7.9.2001 passed in the said Special Leave Petition quashed the order directing investigation by the local police and directed the CBCID to conclude the investigation and to submit its report. However, the protection afforded by the High Court to Meenaxi was directed to be continued. Local police was directed to handover all the materials to CBCID.
8. In the meanwhile, trial against Manoj began. By a judgment and order dated 24.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, he was convicted under Section 324 of the IPC. However, other accused were acquitted.
9. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which is pending before the High Court. The sentence passed against Manoj has also been suspended and he has been granted bail. On or about 2.5.2006, a charge sheet was filed against Shashi and Meenaxi under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Shashi was said to have been named therein for the first time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Criminal Misc. Application No. 29442 of 2009. Case: Dharam Singh and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...on Shyam Charan Dubey Vs. State 1989 (1) Crimes 407 . The learned counsel for applicants has relied on Manoj Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal (2009) 6 SCC 385 wherein the Apex Court has held that when this Court has directed C.B. C.I.D. to complete the investigation, it is obligatory on its part ......
-
Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 4899 of 2010. Case: Raju Vs The State and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...further investigation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:- i) (2009) 6 SCC 385 (Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi ii) (2009) 7 SCC 685 (Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and Anr.) The learned Government Advocate (Criminal S......
-
Appeal No. - 5302 of 2013. Case: Reena Verma Vs The State of U.P.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...have been initiated by the opposite parties. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. Satish Agrawal reported in (2009) 6 SCC 385 has held that whether a case has been lodged in retaliation, which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it is a matter......
-
TGN KUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA . Supreme Court, 14-01-2011
...It is equally trite that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with 8 (2009) 6 SCC 3858 circumspection, and in rare cases to correct patent illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Mahara......
-
Criminal Misc. Application No. 29442 of 2009. Case: Dharam Singh and Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Others. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...on Shyam Charan Dubey Vs. State 1989 (1) Crimes 407 . The learned counsel for applicants has relied on Manoj Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal (2009) 6 SCC 385 wherein the Apex Court has held that when this Court has directed C.B. C.I.D. to complete the investigation, it is obligatory on its part ......
-
Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 4899 of 2010. Case: Raju Vs The State and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
...further investigation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:- i) (2009) 6 SCC 385 (Manoj Narain Agrawal v. Shashi ii) (2009) 7 SCC 685 (Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and Anr.) The learned Government Advocate (Criminal S......
-
Appeal No. - 5302 of 2013. Case: Reena Verma Vs The State of U.P.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...have been initiated by the opposite parties. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs. Satish Agrawal reported in (2009) 6 SCC 385 has held that whether a case has been lodged in retaliation, which cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it is a matter......
-
TGN KUMAR vs STATE OF KERALA . Supreme Court, 14-01-2011
...It is equally trite that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with 8 (2009) 6 SCC 3858 circumspection, and in rare cases to correct patent illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice. In Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Mahara......