Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order in Dowry Death Case: Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 09 July 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 726
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a Magistrate be compelled to take cognizance of a case based on a protest petition when they disagree with a police report? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning allegations of dowry death. This case revolves around whether a Magistrate is obligated to treat a protest petition against a police report as a formal complaint, requiring them to follow specific procedures for taking cognizance.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, examined the matter, focusing on the powers of a Magistrate when faced with a police report indicating no offense and a subsequent protest petition filed by the complainant. The judgment clarifies the extent to which a Magistrate must consider a protest petition and the appropriate procedures to be followed.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the second respondent alleging that his daughter, who was married to the appellant on 22 April 2004, was harassed and killed for dowry. The FIR invoked Sections 201, 304B, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complainant alleged that the appellant and his family demanded a car and money as dowry, and that his daughter was physically and mentally abused for not bringing dowry. He further stated that on 08 September 2010, he received a call that his daughter was critical. Upon reaching her residence, he was informed that she had been taken to a hospital. After searching various hospitals, he learned of her death.

Following the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report under Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that no case was made out against the accused. The second respondent then filed a protest petition against this report.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the protest petition, concluding that the second respondent’s daughter died due to illness and that no dowry death or harassment had occurred. The Magistrate accepted the final report filed by the police.

The second respondent then filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the second respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge and requesting a fresh investigation. The High Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to reconsider the protest petition.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of several key legal provisions:

• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines dowry death, which occurs when a woman dies due to burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections deal with the giving or taking of dowry and the penalty for demanding dowry.
• Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section is not explicitly mentioned in the text but is implied as the section under which the final report was filed.
• Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrates. Specifically, Section 190(1)(b) allows a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offense upon a police report.
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the report of the police officer on completion of investigation.
• Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: These sections outline the procedure for examining the complainant and witnesses when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a complaint.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the High Court failed to acknowledge that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had indeed considered the protest petition.
• The appellant argued that the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge had correctly applied the law.
• The appellant submitted that his wife’s death was due to natural causes, specifically an illness and that there was no case for interfering with the orders of the lower courts.
• The appellant emphasized that the marriage was in 2004 and that the wife had conceived and delivered a child. He further stated that his wife unfortunately fell ill and died despite treatment.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the death certificate from Priti Hospital raised questions about the cause of death, which were not addressed by the lower courts. The death certificate mentioned “septicaemia c respiratory distress” and “cardio pulmonary arrest” as causes of death.
• The respondent contended that witness statements contained material that should have persuaded the Chief Judicial Magistrate to treat the protest petition as a complaint.
• The respondent highlighted that while the Additional Sessions Judge found no prima facie case under Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC, there was no reference to Section 498A of the IPC. However, the respondent clarified that the case was not pressed under Section 498A, and the arguments were confined to Sections 304B and 201 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Whether the Magistrate is bound to treat a protest petition as a complaint and follow the procedure under Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when disagreeing with a police report.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases

• Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117]: This case established that a Magistrate cannot compel the police to change their opinion but is free to not accept a police report and may take suitable action, including directing further investigation.
• H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving -cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) [(1980) 4 SCC 631]: This case clarified the options available to a Magistrate upon receiving a police report, including the power to take cognizance based on the report or the original complaint.
• Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy [(2003) 1 SCC 734]: This case held that a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offense on a protest/complaint petition even after accepting a final report.
• Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768]: This case reiterated that a Magistrate can independently apply their mind to the facts and take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. without following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202.
• Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537]: This case stressed the desirability of informing the complainant when a report under Section 173(2) is under consideration and the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance.
• Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra [(2011) 15 SCC 513]: This case held that a Magistrate can take cognizance based on a complaint even after accepting a final report.
• Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2014 (13) SCC 133]: This case approved the principles of law laid down in Mahesh Chand (supra).
• Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & others [(2015) 5 SCC 423]: This case overruled the judgment of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & others and laid down that a Writ of Certiorari will not lie to quash an order of a civil court.
• Iris Computers Limited v. Askari Infotech Private Limited and others [(2015) 14 SCC 399]: This case held that the accused may not have the right to be heard until process is issued.
• Mohammed Yusuf and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2008 CriLJ 493]: This case was relied upon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take the view that if cognizance is taken on the basis of the protest petition and the documents annexed with, that is illegal.
• Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha [(1982) 3 SCC 510]: This case held that the acceptance of a final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of materials in a complaint proceeding.
• Munilal Thakur case [1985 Cri LJ 437]: This case held that a Magistrate, even after accepting a final report, can take cognizance of an offense upon a complaint or protest petition.
• Jayashankar Mund case [1989 Cri LJ 1578]: This case held that a protest petition is referable to the investigation already held by the police.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar case [AIR 1962 SC 876]: This case held that a second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in a previous matter.
• India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132]: This case held that a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offense under Section 190(1)(b) even if the police report is that no case is made out against the accused.
• Mahabir Prasad Agarwala v. State [AIR 1958 Ori. 11]: This case took the view that a protest petition is in the nature of a complaint and should be examined in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Qasim and others v. The State and others [1984 CrlL J 1677]: This case held that every protest petition need not be treated as a complaint.
• Veerappa and others v. Bhimareddappa [2002 CriLJ 2150 (Karnataka)]: This case observed that if a complainant wants to protest a ‘B’ report, they are inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. on a complaint.

Legal Provisions

• Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Defines “complaint.”
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the report of the police officer on completion of investigation.
• Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows a Magistrate to take cognizance upon receiving a complaint.
• Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Allows a Magistrate to take cognizance upon a police report.
• Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: These sections outline the procedure for examining the complainant and witnesses when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a complaint.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Abhinandan Jha and others v. Dinesh Mishra [AIR 1968 SC 117]*: The Court reiterated that a Magistrate is not bound by the police report and may direct further investigation.
• H.S. Bains, Director, Small Saving -cum-Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) [(1980) 4 SCC 631]*: The Court affirmed that a Magistrate can take cognizance based on a police report or the original complaint.
• Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy [(2003) 1 SCC 734]*: The Court reiterated that a Magistrate can take cognizance on a protest/complaint petition even after accepting a final report.
• Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 7 SCC 768]*: The Court emphasized that a Magistrate can independently apply their mind to the facts and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) without following the procedure under Sections 200 and 202.
• Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537]*: The Court highlighted the need to notify the complainant when a Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance.
• Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani v. G.D. Mehrotra [(2011) 15 SCC 513]*: The Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate can take cognizance on a complaint even after accepting a final report.
• Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2014 (13) SCC 133]*: The Court approved the principles of law laid down in Mahesh Chand (supra).
• Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & others [(2015) 5 SCC 423]*: The Court clarified that a Writ of Certiorari will not lie to quash an order of a civil court.
• Iris Computers Limited v. Askari Infotech Private Limited and others [(2015) 14 SCC 399]*: The Court stated that the accused may not have the right to be heard until process is issued.
• Mohammed Yusuf and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2008 CriLJ 493]*: The Court noted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate relied on this case to hold that cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of a protest petition and its annexures.
• Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha [(1982) 3 SCC 510]*: The Court cited this case to show that acceptance of a final report does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of materials produced in a complaint proceeding.
• Munilal Thakur case [1985 Cri LJ 437]*: The Court highlighted that a Magistrate, even after accepting a final report, can take cognizance of an offense upon a complaint or protest petition.
• Jayashankar Mund case [1989 Cri LJ 1578]*: The Court noted that this case held that a protest petition is referable to the investigation already held by the police.
• Pramatha Nath Talukdar case [AIR 1962 SC 876]*: The Court cited this case to show that a second complaint could be dismissed after a decision has been given against the complainant in a previous matter.
• India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(1989) 2 SCC 132]*: The Court mentioned this case to show that a Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offense under Section 190(1)(b) even if the police report is that no case is made out against the accused.
• Mahabir Prasad Agarwala v. State [AIR 1958 Ori. 11]*: The Court acknowledged that this case took the view that a protest petition is in the nature of a complaint and should be examined in accordance with provisions of Chapter XVI of the Criminal Procedure Code.
• Qasim and others v. The State and others [1984 CrlL J 1677]*: The Court noted that this case held that every protest petition need not be treated as a complaint.
• Veerappa and others v. Bhimareddappa [2002 CriLJ 2150 (Karnataka)]*: The Court acknowledged that this case observed that if a complainant wants to protest a ‘B’ report, they are inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr. P.C. on a complaint.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Magistrate had indeed considered the protest petition, the FIR, and the statements of witnesses.
• The Magistrate had the discretion to evaluate the material and decide whether to take cognizance.
• The Magistrate had relied on medical reports and witness statements to conclude that the death was due to illness.
• The High Court had erred in concluding that the Magistrate had not considered the protest petition.
• The High Court’s interference with the orders of the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge was not justified.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court also clarified that if the complainant is not satisfied with the order, they are not precluded from filing a fresh complaint.

Flowchart of the Legal Process

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the following key points:

• A Magistrate is not bound to treat a protest petition as a complaint and follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when disagreeing with a police report.
• The Magistrate has the discretion to evaluate the material and decide whether to take cognizance.
• If the Magistrate is convinced that a prima facie case is not made out, they are not bound to take cognizance.
• The complainant’s remedy would be to file a fresh complaint if they are not satisfied with the Magistrate’s order.
• The High Court should not interfere with the orders of lower courts unless there is a clear error of law or a miscarriage of justice.