D.K.Ganesh Babu vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors

D.K. Ganesh Babu .. Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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.