The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Kishan Datwani vs State, Govt. of NCT Delhi consisting of Justice Asha Menon while dismissing a petition u/s 482 CrPC observed that the Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to consider the charge triable only by the Sessions Court.
Facts
The petitioner got married to the daughter of respondent No.2. and thereafter a child was born to them. Subsequently, when she conceived again, she was under the supervision of a doctor at Delhi. When was given some injection, she developed complications and died.
Procedural History
On a complaint made by the respondent No.2, the FIR was registered u/s 498A IPC against the petitioner, who was arrested and subsequently granted bail. The learned MM concluded that no prima-facie case has been made out for framing of charge against the petitioner. It also held that no case u/s 304B IPC was made. Aggrieved, the State preferred a revision before the learned ASJ who was of the view that the documents of the accused could not have been considered at the time of arguments on the point of charge as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi. It held that the learned MM had no jurisdiction to consider the charge u/s 304B IPC which was triable only by the Sessions Court. It was also observed that the post-mortem examination report had recorded antemortem injuries by blunt force trauma, which were 2-7 days old. It allowed the revision, set aside the learned MM’s order and directed the learned Trial Court to proceed against the present petitioner being accused as per law.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The learned ASJ overlooked the fact that immediately after the death, neither the father nor the mother of the deceased had levelled any accusations against the petitioner. Thereafter, only the father had given a fresh statement. There was delay in the FIR registration by two months which gave scope for the complainant to manipulate facts. The post-mortem report does not attach any culpability upon the petitioner as it was a natural death. Judgments relied upon by the learned ASJ were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned MM had rightly concluded that there was no case made out against the petitioner u/s 498A IPC. Offence u/s 304B IPC was not included in the charge-sheet and yet the learned ASJ seems to have gone that way, without cause or material. Reliance was placed on Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, and In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Respondent: The injuries were antemortem, unexplained and 7 days old. The difference in the statements made by the father of the deceased could be explained naturally. Further, the offence u/s 304B IPC was also made out prima-facie and, therefore, the Sessions Court should be directed to frame charge u/s 498A and 304B IPC. The learned MM ought to have committed the case to the Sessions Court and not have discharged the petitioner.
In rejoinder, petitioner submitted that the injuries were not attributable to the petitioner but to some medical procedures. Respondent No.2 had also submitted that the petitioner had been subjecting his deceased daughter to physical harm for dowry and the petitioner was required to face trial for what he had done.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the question of framing of charge u/s 304B IPC was beyond the ken of the learned Magistrate. If prima-facie a case had been disclosed as to the commission of offence u/s 304B IPC, the appropriate action to be taken by the learned MM was to commit the case to the Sessions Court. It would then have been open to the Sessions Court to determine whether the offences u/s 498A read with Section 304B IPC were made out or not or only the offence u/s 498A IPC was made out in which event, the matter then would have been remitted back to the learned MM for trial.
Judgment
Finding no merit in the present petition, it was accordingly dismissed.
Case: Jai Kishan Datwani vs State, Govt. of NCT Delhi
Citation: CRL.M.C. 2263/2020, CRL.M.A. 16090/2020 (stay)
Bench: Justice Asha Menon
Decided on: 09th May 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
