Blog

Case title: Sanghmitra v. State

Case no.:  CRL.M.C. 1227/2009

Dated on: 1^st April 2024

Quorum: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in this case has filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 04.10.2008, in CR No. 87/2008. This judgment pertains to a case arising from FIR No. 1098/2002, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi, for an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The facts of the case indicate that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC on 03.07.2002 against respondent nos. 2 to 8 with the CAW Cell. This complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 1098/2002. The petitioner alleged that she was married to respondent no. 2 according to Buddhist rites and ceremonies on 28.02.1998.

Allegations were made regarding demands for dowry, verbal abuse, and physical violence against her. The accused persons allegedly used to abuse the petitioner and used to ask her to give them more dowry. It was further alleged in the complaint that a specific demand of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car, and a separate house was raised by the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws.

The charge-sheet in the case was filed on 27.07.2004, and the accused persons were charged under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC. However, the learned Magistrate dropped the charges under Section 406 of IPC against the accused persons on the ground that the complaint did not mention a demand for the return of articles. The accused persons were charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

The accused persons filed a revision petition (CR No. 87/2008) against the order framing charges, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Court through the impugned judgment, discharging the accused persons for the offense under Sections 498A/34 of IPC. The petitioner/complainant has now challenged this judgment through the present petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the Sessions Court erred in discharging respondent nos. 2 to 8 from the FIR. They contend that the complaint was within the limitation period, as it was filed within three years of the last alleged offense. The counsel asserts that the date of filing the complaint, not the date of cognizance, determines the limitation period. They emphasize that Section 498A IPC covers continuing offenses, including mental cruelty, even if the wife is not residing at her matrimonial home.

The petitioner stated in the complaint that dowry demands persisted after she left the matrimonial home, extending to mental torture via phone calls. The counsel criticizes the Sessions Court for prematurely assessing the case’s merits, alleging potential false implication solely due to the complainant being a police officer. They argue that the respondent no. 2, also a police officer, wouldn’t have been implicated without merit. The counsel maintains that specific allegations justify the inclusion of the accused relatives and seeks the reversal of the judgment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that the learned Magistrate lacked authority to review the order dated 27.07.2004 and could only condone delay at the time of taking cognizance. They argue that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of a time-barred case unless delay is condoned under Section 473 at the time of cognizance. The complaints filed by the petitioner were after she had been residing separately, and lacked specific allegations, only containing general ones.

They assert that as a second appellate court, this court cannot delve into the case’s merits based on factual instances. They further argue that despite the petitioner’s knowledge of law and investigation procedures as a Delhi Police employee, she failed to produce supporting documents or witnesses. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Pertains to the bar on taking cognizance of certain offenses after the lapse of the prescribed period.
2. Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Relates to the power of the court to take cognizance of an offense after the lapse of the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained.
3. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband towards a woman.
4. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

ISSUE –

The issue at hand, after scrutinizing the entirety of the case’s factual context, revolves around whether the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on 27.07.2004 was time-barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the learned Sessions Court appropriately discharged the accused individuals in its judgment dated 04.10.2008.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Cognizance by the Magistrate was Not Barred by Limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

Undisputed facts include the petitioner leaving her matrimonial home on 08.09.1999, filing a complaint with the CAW Cell on 03.07.2002, the police registering an FIR on 19.12.2002 under Sections 498A/406 of IPC, and the prosecution filing a charge-sheet on 27.07.2004, with cognizance taken on the same day.

Regarding the issue of cognizance, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, clarified that for computing the limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution is relevant, not the date of Magistrate’s cognizance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty that the date of filing the complaint determines the limitation period, not the date of cognizance.

Applying this principle, considering the date of the alleged offense and the date of filing the complaint, it is evident that the complaint was within the limitation period. The petitioner’s complaint included incidents beyond the date of leaving her matrimonial home, indicating ongoing cruelty, as emphasized in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.

Therefore, it prima facie appears that there was no delay in filing the complaint under Section 498A/406 of IPC. However, it remains for the Trial Court to determine whether these incidents fall within the ambit of Section 498A of IPC.

The impugned judgment is subject to being overturned for two reasons:

Firstly, the bar under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. doesn’t apply here, as the complaint was filed within the limitation period. Therefore, the question posed by the Sessions Court regarding condoning delay in a supposedly time-barred case was misframed.

Secondly, the Sessions Court’s reasoning for refusing to condone the delay is flawed. It seems to suggest that a police officer, like the petitioner, cannot be a victim of domestic violence, which is a biased and unjustified perception. The court’s decision should be based on facts, not biases or stereotypes about gender or profession. Judicial decisions must be grounded in law, precedents, and evidence, not assumptions or prejudices about individuals’ professions or personal lives.

Judicial decisions must embrace gender neutrality and remain free from hidden biases. Biases, ingrained in societal norms, can subtly influence judgments, but judges must ensure impartiality. In this case, biases led to overlooking the complexities of domestic violence, particularly for empowered women. Judicial education is vital to address biases and ensure fairness in adjudication. The court emphasizes the importance of continuous training for judges to understand diverse perspectives and enhance public trust in the legal system. The impugned judgment is set aside, affirming the framing of charges under Sections 498A/34 of IPC. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with instructions to inform the trial court and upload the judgment on the website.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement