For Legal Consultation
+91-9324248000
The Bombay High Court recently quashed a C-Summary Report filed by the Investigating Officer before a Judicial Magistrate in a case wherein the allegations of the offence of Bigamy (Section 494 IPC) were involved.
The bench of Justice PD Naik and Justice AS Gadkari also slammed the Investigating Officer for the recording of the second ‘main’ statement of the victim by terming the same to be contrary to the basic provisions of Cr.P.C. and criminal jurisprudence.
For context, a ‘C-Summary’ Report is filed by the police before the Concerned court in matters when the criminal case is registered due to a mistake of facts or the offence complained about is of a civil nature.
It may be noted that as per Law, the Investigating Officer could not have recorded the second main statement of the victim as the Law only provides for the recording of a supplementary statement and the main/first statement can be recorded only once.
The case in brief
Essentially, in this case, the complainant/victim had levelled an allegation of cruelty against her husband and his relatives and the bigamy and concealment of the previous marriage. In view of the above, an FIR was lodged against her husband and his relatives u/s. 498A, 494, 495, 420, 406 r/w 34 of IPC.
Further, the complainant also instituted Domestic violence proceeding before the Magistrate Court at Bandra, Mumbai. However during the first hearing, both the parties decided to amicably resolve the issue and the said DV proceeding was withdrawn.
Subsequently, both parties filed the joint consent petition for divorce before the family court and the husband agreed to pay alimony of Rs.21 lakh and same was deposited with the family court and out of the above-mentioned amount, 10 lakhs was immediately handed over to the complainant and it was decided that the balance of Rs. 11 lakhs would be handed over after the quashing of FIR.
Accordingly, the instant petition for Quashing of FIR was filed before the Bombay high court.Now, when the matter came up for hearing before the bench, the Court was apprised by the public prosecutor that a C-summary report in the present matter has already been filed by the Police.
Based on the submission of the public prosecutor, the bench directed the IO to file an affidavit and explain how he filed the summary report in the matter wherein Sections 498A, 406, 494, 420,495 read with Section 34 of the IPC were involved.
Defending his act of filing a C-Summary Report, the Police Sub Inspector and the APP made a submission that the victim's second ‘main’ statement was recorded by the IO.
Taking exception to the same, the Court quashed and set aside the said Summary Report dated January 30, 2020, submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 5th Court, Thane, as it noted that the same was not in consonance with the fundamentals of criminal jurisprudence.
The Court also cautioned the PSI not to commit such mistakes hereinafter.
Further, the Court also quashed the FIR based on the amicable settlement between the parties and the NOC given by the complainant to that effect.
Appearances
Advocate Sunny Singh for the Petitioners.
APP GP Mulekar for Respondent No.1-State.
APP GP Mulekar for Respondent No.1-State.
Case title - ABC vs XYZ