ARCHANA HARSHWARDHAN CHATURVEDI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.V. Manohar, learned counsel for Petitioners and Smt. S.S. Wandile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondents. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

(2.) Shri Manohar, learned counsel for petitioners has contended that in the instant Criminal Writ Petition, grievance of petitioners is that, complainant has filed police complaint dated 13.03.2007 against Shri Harshwardhan Chaturvedi (accused no.1 - husband of petitioner no.1), Smt. Asha Chaturvedi (mother of accused no.1), Dr. Prakash Chaturvedi (father of accused no.1) and Ku. Jaya Chaturvedi (sister of accused no.1), for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, similarly under sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act, as well as under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that apart from the above referred complaint, allegations are also made in the police report that the accused no.1 Harshwardhan Chaturvedi, before marriage was solemnized between him and petitioner no.1 in the year 2000 was patient of HIV Positive. It is further contended that the accused no.1 was fully aware about the deadly ailment he was suffering from, prior to getting married to petitioner no.1. The accused no.1 deliberately and purposely did not disclose these facts to the petitioner no.1 and performed the marriage with her. It is further submitted that the act of accused no.1 falls within the ambit of provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 308 of the Code. It is contended that in the instant case, though the Police Station Officer, Dhantoli registered crime against the above referred accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 2 and 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. However, for offence punishable under section 420 as well as Section 308 of the Code, no crime has been registered by the police station concerned, though the cognizable offence is made out. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (2) Scale 457 (Ramesh Kumari .vrs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others), it was incumbent on the Police Station Officer to register the offence if the complaint discloses such cognizable offence, and it is only thereafter the investigating officer is required to conduct the investigation and take it to its logical end by filing charge sheet or by obtaining necessary orders from the Magistrate in the Summary Proceeding.

(3.) Shri Manohar, learned counsel for petitioners has further contended that in the instant case, since the police station officer has not taken cognizance in respect of the cognizable offences disclosed in the complaint, appropriate directions in this regard be given.