SHRAVAN KUMAR SONKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the investigation of offence pertaining to Crime No. 23 of 1996 registered at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur, be quashed as the F. I. R. in respect of this investigation does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 Shravan Kumar Sonkar and the respondent No. 4 Smt. Saroj Sonkar stood dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 16. 5. 1995 and since a bare perusal of the F. I. R. (Annexure R-I) and the return of the respondents 1,2,3 and 4 indicates that the commission of the offence has been alleged between 15. 1. 1996 and 17. 6. 1996, this period being subsequent to the decree of divorce, no offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out, as it requires existence of relationship of husband and wife. The learned Counsel has invited attention to the contents of the F. I. R. (Annexurer-I) to point out that even though the case has also been registered under Section 406, I. P. C, the ingredients of the said provision are not made out, as there is no allegation of any mis-appropriation of property leading to criminal breach of trust. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. B. R. Bajaj, A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 1256, and has particularly invited attention to paragraph No. 7 thereof, in which their Lordships have laid down as to in what circumstances the investigation can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the argument of the learned Counsel is based on the said observation of the Supreme Court, the relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below :

(2.) WHILE the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that if the FIR is read, it does disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the ground on which the authority to investigate has been assailed is that there being no relation- ship of husband and wife in existence on the dates between which the offence is said to have been committed, it cannot be said that offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. was made out. Likewise, nothing is there on record to indicate any mis- appropriation leading to criminal breach of trust, which is nothing bar an offence under Section 406,i. P. C.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has urged that since no reference has been made of any decree of divorce, on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepti v. Akhil Rai, (1995) 5s. C. C. 751, the investigation can be continued and it would be open to the petitioners to place entire material before the Court at the time of framing of the charge. The learned Counsel for the said respondent has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar, AIR 1992 S. C. 1930, holding that the Courts are not justified in quashing the investigation when the entire material can be produced before the Court at the time of framing of the charge.