Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shamsundar Sudam Divte, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.1244 of 2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Beed. The private complaint was filed by Respondent No.1, Uddhav Limbaji Kothule, the brother of the deceased Aasarabai, against the petitioner, his brother, mother, and sister alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The factual background involves Aasarabai being married to Sudam, the petitioner's father, but due to her inability to bear children, Sudam remarried the petitioner's mother. Aasarabai then left her husband and lived with her brother, Respondent No.1. It was alleged that she purchased six acres of land from her Stridhan and was in exclusive possession. The petitioner, being the son from the second wife, was accused of subjecting Aasarabai to cruelty and ultimately causing her death. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that Respondent No.1, being a relative of the deceased, had not obtained prior sanction from the competent authority as required under Section 198(2) of CrPC. The court examined the provisions of Section 198 CrPC, which deals with prosecution for offences against marriage and for dowry death. It noted that Section 198(2) CrPC mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, or 306 IPC except upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence, or by a relative of the deceased with the previous sanction of the competent authority. The court found that the complaint was filed by Respondent No.1, who is the brother of the deceased, and there was no material on record to show that any such sanction was obtained. The court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 198(2) CrPC is mandatory and its absence renders the complaint not maintainable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the criminal proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.1244 of 2016, and discharged the petitioner and other accused persons.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintainability of Complaint - Section 198 CrPC - Sanction - Complaint filed by brother of deceased alleging dowry death and cruelty - Held that under Section 198(2) CrPC, a complaint by a relative of the deceased for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 IPC requires prior sanction from the competent authority - In absence of such sanction, the complaint is not maintainable and proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - Held that where a complaint is filed without complying with mandatory requirement of sanction under Section 198 CrPC, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court, warranting exercise of inherent powers to quash (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a private complaint filed by the brother of the deceased alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, without obtaining prior sanction under Section 198(2) of CrPC, is maintainable.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No.1244 of 2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Beed are quashed and set aside. The petitioner and other accused persons are discharged.
Law Points
- Section 198 CrPC requires prior sanction for complaint by relative of deceased in case of dowry death
- Section 198(2) CrPC mandates sanction from competent authority
- lack of sanction renders complaint not maintainable
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process
