Court Has To Be Prima Facie Satisfied Of The Charges Alleged Against The Accused While Issuing Summons Under IPC, 1860: Anjani Gupta Vs The State (NCT Of Delhi) & Anr

Date of Judgement:
8th March 2022

Coram/judge:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Parties to the Case:
Petitioner – Anjani Gupta
Respondents - The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Brief

The petition had been filed against the validity of an order passed by the learned special judge in revision petition arising out of Summoning Order passed in the Case of Om Prakash Gupta v. Anjani Gupta (Criminal case no. 901/13).

Legal Provisions

• Section 482 CrPC, 1973- It preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice and therefore the High Court have jurisdiction to quash FIRs.
• Section 378 of IPC,1860- which deals with the crime of theft of movable property.
• Section 380 of IPC,1860- which deals with punishment related to theft in dwelling, house, etc.
• Section 406 of IPC, 1860- which deals with punishment related to criminal breach of trust.
• Section 397 of CrPC, 1973- which deals with revisionary powers of high courts to be exercised within its jurisdiction.

Overview

• The petitioner and the son of respondent no.2 were validly married as per the provisions of law. With time, the relationship between the petitioner and her in-laws started to deteriorate. It had been alleged by the petitioner that she was constantly being harassment and tortured by her husband for dowry and other issues since the beginning of the marriage. The petitioner alleged her husband of an illicit relationship with another women, which was supported by his family.
• The petitioner was barred from her matrimonial house on 16th September, 2011. This was followed by a series of cases filed by parties on each other. One of such cases was filed by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said matter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, in light of relevant facts, entitled the petitioner to the right of residence at the first floor of the property, which was her matrimonial home till the day she was dispossessed from the house.
• The Petitioner was restrained from interfering in the affairs of the Respondents at the ground floor and similarly, the said Respondents were also restrained from interfering in the possession at the first floor. Respondent No. 2 filed a Revision Petition against such order, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court.
• Later it was discovered by the petitioner that learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Respondent has issued summon under Section 380 of the IPC for allegedly committing theft of certain letters belonging to the respondent no.2, while he was not present at his house. A revision petitioner against such order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on 17th March 2018.
• This petitioner has impugned the Order dated 17th March, 2018, where it was held that a prima facie ground had been made out to allege that the Petitioner committed theft as well as order wherein summons was issued to the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced by The Petitioner

• The Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders failed to consider that the Respondent No. 2 did not come to the Courts with clean hands. Respondent No. 2 had been in a habit of filing frivolous complaints against the Petitioner with the intention harass her.
• Once the relief sought by petitioner of Right to Residence in her matrimonial home was granted, The Petitioner on several occasions tried to enter the premises, (having due right), such attempt was restrained by Respondent No. 2 deliberately by locking up the premises and going away. Then she resorted to help from local police for the same.
• FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the respondent in appropriate police station u/s 406 of IPC along with other relevant provisions to carry an investigation into the matter for recovery of ‘stridhan’ and other articles of the Petitioner that were lying with the respondent no. 2. Even then the Police officers were restricted by respondent no. 2 to enter the place where valuables were kept.
• The learned counsel contended that the allegations of theft under IPC were false and had no grounds. The Revision Petition was dismissed solely on the basis of the testimony of two neighbours, who concealed the fact that the Police assistance was sought for Right of Residence as ordered but the efforts failed.
• Relying on the case of Pepsi Food & Ors vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors, learned counsel submitted that the summoning of an accused is a serious matter and before issuing summons, evidence on record has to carefully inspected and truthfulness of the allegations has to be determined as to whether the alleged offence is prima facie committed by the accused.
• It was submitted that mere picking up of certain letters lying at the premises can’t establish theft. Since the property was petitioner’s matrimonial home, it could not have been presumed that all letters put in the mailbox of the premises belonged to the Respondent No. 2. He was not able to establish that the post mails belonged to him and further, he was not able to give a description of the said letters.

Arguments Advanced by The Respondents

• The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the contentions and submitted that granting the Right of Residence was limited to the first floor of the premises. The Petitioner had brought a key maker to the premises and broke into the house which was in no manner, permitted by the Order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
• The petitioner broke into premises of respondent no. 2. Upon which the neighbours of the respondent no.2 called the police, before leaving the premises, the Petitioner removed postal letters from the post box of the Respondent No. 2 which contained valuable documents that were lying in the gallery of the house. The same was also recorded in the CCTV installed in the house and the footage was also produced before the learned court.
• The ground floor the house was in possession the Respondent No. 2, and the letters were in his deemed possession and removal of the same without his consent and knowledge amounted to theft. There was a dishonest intention of the petitioner as no assistance was taken of the police or any authority in acquiring the letters.

Issue

Whether the order of the Session Court, issuing summons, be quashed on want of a prima facie satisfaction of the charges alleged against the accused?

Judgement Analysis

• The Honourable Court, while referring to leading case laws decided by the Apex court, observed that there must be a prima facie cognizance of evidence along with application of judicial mind for a summoning order to be just and legal.
• In the present case, the lower courts were to examine that if the basic elements of theft under IPC were met by the act of petitioner or not
• A plain reading of provision theft under IPC establishes that the person shall commit theft if, one

1. removes any movable property from the possession of another person
2. does this without his consent
3. with dishonest intention. When does anything with the intent of causing wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another person, one is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

• In the instant case, there was a high probability that any letters coming into the home could have been addressed to the petitioner as it had been her matrimonial home since many years. The post box being located at the entrance, there is a possibility of the letters of petitioner being delivered in the same post box that was located on the ground floor.
• The post can also contain material such as newspapers, magazines, etc. which are common to the household. So, there was hardly any wrongful loss or gain that could be caused just by picking up certain letters lying on the floor of the house. Hence no dishonest intention was established at the preliminary stage. So, a prima facie case could not have been made against the petitioner. Hence the summon was held as invalid and erroneous.
• The Revisional Court should have observed that the Court below did not consider that prima facie an offence of theft was not made out as the ingredients Section 380 of the IPC were not met. There was an error of law while passing the Order of summons and the Revisional Court wrongly upheld the Order dated 20th June, 2015 vide its Order dated 17th March, 2018.
• The FIR by the Respondent No. 2 with the charges of theft seemed another attempt to harass petitioner. Such kind of practices cannot be upheld and amounts to misuse of legal machinery.

Conclusion

The Honourable High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 illuminated the essentials to prove the offence of theft under Indian Penal Code. It was also reiterated that the summoning of an accused is a serious matter and the while doing so, the Magistrate has to carefully investigate the evidence brought on record and form up a prima facie opinion that proves that the offence is committed by the accused.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement