{"id":194532,"date":"1989-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989"},"modified":"2018-01-30T21:28:22","modified_gmt":"2018-01-30T15:58:22","slug":"stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","title":{"rendered":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (1) 560, \t 1989 SCC (1) 715<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/02\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 SCR  (1) 560\t  1989 SCC  (1) 715\n JT 1989 (1)   247\t  1989 SCALE  (1)330\n\n\nACT:\n    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: ss. 227 & 22.8:  Sessions\nJudge\tframing\t  charge  and  making\torder\tin   support\nthereof--High\t Court\t whether   has\t  jurisdiction\t  to\ninterfere--Law must be allowed to take its own course unless\nglaring injustice found.\n    Indian   Penal  Code,  1860:  ss.  304B  &\t 498A--Dowry\noffence-All round attempt to cover up by family members than\nto  expose it-Necessity .for investigating agency  to  pene-\ntrate every dark corner and collect all evidence--Courts  to\ndisplay\t greater sensibility to criminality and\t avoid\tsoft\njustice.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t deceased was seen in flames on the first  floor  of\nher  in-laws house crying for help within five days  of\t her\nmarriage  with the younger brother of the respondent.  While\nneighbours rushed to her rescue and extinguished the flames,\nthe  inmates of the house did not render any such help.\t The\nrespondent  who was on the first floor was seen coming\tdown\nthe  stairs. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries  in\nthe  hospital  on  the same day. In  her  dying\t declaration\nrecorded  by the Executive Magistrate, she stated that\twhen\nshe  was preparing tea in the kitchen her saree caught\tfire\naccidently.\n    The\t parents of the deceased suspected foul play by\t her\nin-laws\t and lodged a report with the police. An  investiga-\ntion.of the case revealed that the deceased had met  hostile\natmosphere soon after her marriage. The parents gave  state-\nments  that  the in-laws demanded unreasonable\tdowry  which\ncould not be complied with and that at the wedding  ceremony\nthey had behaved badly on the payment of insufficient dowry.\nHer  brother  who had gone to bring her back  home  was\t not\npermitted to meet her. The maid servant sent along with\t her\nwas also sent back.\n     The respondent and his father were charge sheeted under\ns.  306\t read with s. 34 I.P.C. The trial court\t came  to  a\nprima facie conclusion that it was not a suicide but homici-\ndal  death.  Accordingly, a charge under s. 302\t I.P.C.\t was\nframed against the respondent. The respondent's father\twas,\nhowever, discharged.\n561\n    The\t High Court dismissed the revision petition  of\t the\nState  against the respondent's father. Wile  accepting\t the\nrespondent's  revision it took the view that the  fact\tthat\nthe  accused was passive was of no consequence that  it\t all\ndepends upon the mental response and reaction of an individ-\nual whether he faces the risk and attempts to extinguish the\nflames\tor  quietly watches the incident, that it  does\t not\nshow that the accused actively committed the act of  burning\nor  actively added the commission of suicide, and held\tthat\nthe  charge under s. 302 against him was not made  out,\t and\nthere was not even a case against him to frame charge  under\ns. 306 I.P.C.\n    The\t appellant,  a social welfare organisation  and\t the\nState preferred appeals to the Supreme Court.\n    On the question: Whether the High Court was justified in\ninterfering  with  the\tcharge framed  by  the\ttrial  court\nagainst the respondent, and whether it was necessary to\t put\nhis father also on trial with\nthe material on record.\nPartly allowing the criminal appeals,\n    HELD: 1. The High Court was not justified in interfering\nwith  the charge framed by the trial court against  the\t re-\nspondent accused.\n    2.\tThe  trial court had considered\t every\tmaterial  on\nrecord\tin support of the charge framed. It had\t also  given\nreasons\t why  a\t charge under s. 302  I.P.C.  was  warranted\nagainst\t the respondent even though the police\thad  charge-\nsheeted\t him under s. 306 I.P.C. Section 227  Cr.P.C.  which\nconfers\t power to discharge an accused was designed to\tpre-\nvent  harassment to an innocent person by the arduous  trial\nor  the ordeal of prosecution. The power has been  entrusted\nto  the Sessions Judge who brings to hear his knowledge\t and\nexperience  in\tcriminal  trials. If he\t after\thearing\t the\nparties\t frames a charge and also makes an order in  support\nthereof, the law must be allowed to take its own\ncourse.\n    State  of  Bihar v. Ramesh Singh,<\/a> [1978] 1 SCR  257\t and\nUnion of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.,<\/a> [1979] 2\t SCR\n229 at 234-35, referred to.\n    3.\tSelf restraint on the part of the High Court  should\nhe  the rule unless there is glaring injustice\tstaring\t the\nCourt in the face. In the\n562\ninstant case, it had discharged the respondent mainly  rely-\ning on the dying declaration as if it has been\tconclusively\nproved to be the true and faithful version of the  deceased.\nIt did not advert to the report of the Chemical Analyser  in\nwhich he found kerosene residue on each and every garment of\nthe  deceased,\tand the post-mortem report  which  indicated\nthat besides burn injuries the deceased had sustained contu-\nsions  on  the back shoulders which might have\tbeen  caused\nwith  a\t blunt round object. The events\t that  preceded\t the\ndeath  of the deceased also did not receive  any  considera-\ntion. The statements of brother, father and the maid servant\nof  the deceased have been ignored. The respondent was\tseen\ncoming down from the staircase when the deceased was  crying\nfor  help. The manner in which he went on at that  time,  if\ntrue,  did  not bring him credit. The approach made  by\t the\nHigh  Court,  therefore, cannot be  accepted.  [569C;  566H;\n567A-C]\n    4. Although it was the moral obligation of\trespondent's\nfather as manager of the family to protect the deceased\t and\nsafeguard her life and he had failed to perform that obliga-\ntion, that by itself without anything more is not sufficient\nto  frame a charge against him. The discretion exercised  by\nthe trial court in discharging him was, therefore,  correct.\n[569E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal\tAppeal\tNos.
\n486 to 489 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.1984 of the Bombay
\nHigh  Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 166\/83\t and
\nCriminal Revision No. 234 of 1983 respectively.
\n    M.C. Bhandare, A.M. Khanwilkar and Mrs. H. Wahi for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
S.B. Bhasme and R.A. Gupta for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by\t\t.
\n    K.\tJAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These four appeals, by  leave,
\narise out of the common judgment of Bombay High Court  dated
\nApril 5, 1984 in Criminal Revision Applications 166 and\t 234
\nof 1983. Criminal Appeal Nos. 486 and 487 of 1984 have\tbeen
\npreferred by an Organisation called “Stree Atyachaar Virodhi
\nParishad”. It is an association committed to prevent atroci-
\nties on women. Criminal Appeal Nos. 488 and 489 of 1984\t are
\nby the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
563<\/span><\/p>\n
    The\t case relates to the death of a newly  married\tgirl
\ncalled\tChanda.\t On  June 15, 1981, Chanda  was\t married  to
\nRamesh.\t The  eider brother of Ramesh is  called  Dilip\t and
\nNathumal is their father. The marriage of Ramesh and  Chanda
\ntook place at Nerparsopant, District Yavatmal.
\n    On\tthe  next day of the marriage, the bride  and  groom
\nreturned  to  the house of the latter at Arvi. On  June\t 19,
\n1981, they had gone to Amravati to have prayers in the\tDevi
\nTampie. They came back in the same evening. The day  follow-
\ning  was a fateful day. At about 2.30 PM on June  20,  1981,
\nChanda was seen with flames on the first floor of the  resi-
\ndential\t building,  with frantically crying for\t help.\tThat
\nattracted some of the neighbours from the ground floor. They
\nrushed\tto rescue Chanda. Three of them are: Bhanrao,  Ballu
\nalias  Nandu and Ramdas. They extinguished the\tflame  which
\nwas practically engulfing Chanda. The inmates in the  house,
\nhowever, did not render any such help. Dilip who was on\t the
\nfirst  floor  was  seen coming down  the  stairs..  Shortly,
\nthereafter  two\t doctors came and the police  also  arrived.
\nChanda was taken to Ervin Hospital at Amravati in an  uncon-
\nscious condition. She died in the hospital at about 9.00  pm
\non the same day. Before the death, her dying declaration was
\nsaid  to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate.  It
\nwas  stated therein that when she was preparing tea  in\t the
\nkitchen, her saree caught fire accidentally and consequently
\nshe received the burn injuries.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t parents of Chanda were informed of the death.\tThey
\nsuspected foul play by the in-laws of Chanda. They lodged  a
\nreport at Amravati Police Station complaining that  Chanda’s
\ndeath  might have been the outcome of tension due to  demand
\nof dowry. The Crime Branch of the CID investigated the\tcase
\nand  charge-sheeted Dilip and Nathumal under sec.  306\tread
\nwith sec.34 IPC. It was alleged that the Chanda has  commit-
\nted suicide by burning herself and Dilip and Nathumal  abet-
\nted her.\n<\/p>\n
    An\tinvestigation of the case revealed that\t Chanda\t had
\nhostile\t atmosphere  soon after her marriage.  She  was\t not
\ntreated well in her husband’s house. Vijay, her brother\t and
\nMani  Chand, father have given statements that\tthe  in-laws
\ndemanded  unreasonable\tdowry which could  not\tbe  complied
\nwith.  Even  at the wedding ceremony, it  seems,  that\tthey
\nbehaved\t badly on the payment of insufficient  dowry.  After
\nthe  marriage, when Vijay came to take his sister back\thome
\nas per custom, he was not even permitted to meet her. Kamala
\nBai,  the  maid servant accompanying Chanda  was  also\tsent
\nback. She has also
\n564<\/span>
\ngiven  detailed\t version about the  unfavourable  atmosphere
\naround Chanda.\n<\/p>\n
    In\taddition to the statements of witnesses, there is  a
\nreport\tof  the Chemical Analyser  and\tpost-mortem  report.
\nThese  indicate\t that the death of Chanda could\t not  be  by
\naccidental fire.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t trial\tcourt after considering all  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances  appearing  on record and\t after\theating\t the
\ncounsel\t for  accused and Public Prosecutor  was  of  priraa
\nfacie opinion that it was not a suicide but homicidal death.
\nAccordingly,  the  charge  under sec.  302  IPC\t was  framed
\nagainst\t Dilip.\t Nathumal, however, was\t discharged  holding
\nthat the allegations against him do not justify the  framing
\nof any charge.\n<\/p>\n
    There  were\t two revision applications before  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Bombay. The State filed a revision challenging\t the
\nvalidity  of discharge of Nathumal. Dilip on his part  ques-
\ntioned the correctness of the charge framed against him\t and
\ndemanded  his discharge also. The High Court  dismissed\t the
\nrevision preferred by the State while accepting the revision
\nof  Dilip.  The High Court was of opinion  that\t the  charge
\nunder  sec. 302 against Dilip was misconceived and there  is
\nnot  even a case against him to frame charge under sec.\t 306
\nIPC. He was accordingly discharged.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t primary  question for consideration before  us,  is
\nwhether the High Court was justified in interfering with the
\ncharge\tframed\tby the trial court against Dilip?  The\tnext
\nquestion to be considered is whether it is necessary to\t put
\nNathumal also on trial with the material on record.
\n    We\thave perused the judgments of the courts  below\t and
\nheard counsel on both sides. We gave our anxious  considera-
\ntion to the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  227  of the Code of Criminal  Procedure  having
\nbeating on the contentions urged for the parties, provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“227. Discharge–If, upon considera-
\n\t      tion  of the record of the case and the  docu-
\n\t      ments  submitted therewith, and after  hearing
\n\t      the submissions of the accused and the  prose-
\n\t      cution  in  this behalf, the  judge  considers
\n\t      that  there is no sufficient ground  for\tpro-
\n\t      ceeding  against\tthe accused, he\t shall\tdis-
\n\t      charge the accused and record his reasons\t for
\n\t      so doing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
565<\/span><\/p>\n
    Section  228  requires the judge to frame charge  if  he
\nconsider that there is ground for presuming that the accused
\nhas  committed\tthe offence. The interaction  of  these\t two
\nsections  has already been the subject matter of  considera-
\ntion  by  this\tCourt. In State of Bihar  v.  Ramesh  Singh,<\/a>
\n[1978]\t1 SCR 257, Untwalia, J., while explaining the  scope
\nof the said sections observed (at 259):\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Reading the two provisions  together
\n\t      in juxta pesition, as they have got to be,  it
\n\t      would  be clear that at the beginning and\t the
\n\t      initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity
\n\t      and effect of the evidence which the  Prosecu-
\n\t      tor  proposes to adduce are not to be  meticu-
\n\t      lously  judged.  Nor is any weight to  be\t at-
\n\t      tached to the probable defence of the accused.
\n\t      It  is  not obligatory for the judge  at\tthat
\n\t      stage  of the trial to consider in any  detail
\n\t      and  weigh in a sensitive balance whether\t the
\n\t      facts,  if proved, would be incompatible\twith
\n\t      the  innocence  of  the accused  or  not.\t The
\n\t      standard finding regarding the guilt or other-
\n\t      wise  of\tthe  accused is not  exactly  to  be
\n\t      applied  at the stage of deciding\t the  matter
\n\t      under  sec.  227 or sec. 228 of the  Code.  At
\n\t      that  stage  the court is not to\tsee  whether
\n\t      there  is sufficient ground for conviction  of
\n\t      the  accused or whether the trial is  sure  to
\n\t      end   in\this  conviction.  Strong   suspicion
\n\t      against the accused, if the matter remains  in
\n\t      the region of suspicion, cannot take the place
\n\t      of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the
\n\t      trial. But at the initial stage if there is  a
\n\t      strong  suspicion\t which leads  the  court  to
\n\t      think that there is ground for presuming\tthat
\n\t      the  accused has committed an offence then  it
\n\t      is not open to the court to say that there  is
\n\t      no  sufficient ground for\t proceeding  against
\n\t      the accused.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.,<\/a> [1979]
\n2  SCR 229 at 234-35, Fazal Ali, J., summarised some of\t the
\nprinciples:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“(1) That the Judge while  consider-
\n\t      ing the question of flaming the charges  under
\n\t      sec.  227 of the Code has the undoubted  power
\n\t      to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
\n\t      purpose of finding out whether or not a  prima
\n\t      facie  case against the accused had been\tmade
\n\t      out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(2) Where the material placed before
\n\t      the Court disclose grave suspicion against the
\n\t      accused which has not been properly explained,
\n\t      the Court will be fully justified in
\n\t      566<\/span>
\n\t      framing  a  charge and   proceeding  with\t the
\n\t      trial.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(3)  The test to determine  a  prima
\n\t      facie  case  would naturally depend  upon\t the
\n\t      facts of each case and it is difficult to\t lay
\n\t      down  a rule of universal application. By\t and
\n\t      large,  however,\tif  two\t views\tare  equally
\n\t      possible\tand the Judge is satisfied that\t the
\n\t      evidence produced before him while giving rise
\n\t      to  some\tsuspicion but  not  grave  suspicion
\n\t      against  the accused, he will be fully  within
\n\t      his right to discharge the accused.
\n\t\t\t(4) That in exercising his jurisdic-
\n\t      tion  under the present Code is a\t senior\t and
\n\t      experienced Judge cannot act merely as a\tPost
\n\t      Officer  or a mouth-piece of the\tprosecution,
\n\t      but has to consider the broad probabilities of
\n\t      the case, the total effect of the evidence and
\n\t      the  documents produced before the Court,\t any
\n\t      basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
\n\t      on. This however, does not mean that the Judge
\n\t      should make a roving enquiry into the pros and
\n\t      cons  of the matter and weigh the evidence  as
\n\t      if he was conducting a trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    These  two decisions do not lay down  different  princi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ples. Prafulla Kumar case has only reiterated what has\tbeen
\nstated\tin Ramesh Singh case. In fact, sec. 227 itself\tcon-
\ntains  enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for\t the
\npurpose\t of  discharging an accused. It provides  that\t“the
\nJudge  shall  discharge when he considers that there  is  no
\nsufficient  ground for proceeding against the accused”.\t The
\n‘ground’ in the context is not a ground for conviction,\t but
\na  ground  for putting the accused on trial. It\t is  in\t the
\ntrial,\tthe  guilt or the innocence of the accused  will  be
\ndetermined  and\t not at the time of framing of\tcharge.\t The
\nCourt, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in
\nsifting\t and weighing the material. Nor it is  necessary  to
\ndelve  deep into various aspects. All that the Court has  to
\nconsider  is whether the evidenciary material on  record  if
\ngenerally  accepted,  would reasonably connect\tthe  accused
\nwith the crime. No more need be enquired into.
\n    So much is, we think, established law. To be fair to the
\naccused,  we have examined the material on record  and\talso
\nperused\t the statements of some of the witnesses.  From\t the
\nreport of the Chemical Analyser, it will be seen that  kero-
\nsene  residue  was found on each and every  garment  of\t the
\ndeceased. The post-mortem report also indicates,
\n567<\/span>
\nbesides burn injuries, that Chanda had sustained  contusions
\non the back shoulders. According to the doctor who conducted
\nthe postmortem, those contusions might have been caused with
\nthe  blunt  rounded object. The learned Judge  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  has not adverted to these facts although the  conten-
\ntion  of the Public Prosecutor in this regard has  been\t no-
\nticed. Not merely that, the events that proceeded the  death
\nof Chanda did not receive any consideration. The  statements
\nof  brother  and father of Chanda and also  that  of  Kamala
\nBai–the  maid\tservant\t of Chanda have\t been  ignored.\t The
\nconduct\t of Dilip which was highlighted in the\tcontext\t and
\ncircumstances,\twas brushed aside with little  significance.
\nIt  is\tsaid that Dilip was coming down from  the  staircase
\nwhen Chanda was crying for help. The manner in which he went
\non at that time, if true, did not bring him credit. The High
\nCourt, however, said:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“That  the  accused was\t passive  is
\n\t      neither  here nor there. It all  depends\tupon
\n\t      the  mental response and reaction of an  indi-
\n\t      vidual  whether he faces the risk and  attempt
\n\t      to  extinguish the flames or  quietly  watches
\n\t      the incident. By no interpretation could it be
\n\t      stretched\t to  show that\tthe  accused  either
\n\t      actively\tcommitted the act of burning or\t ac-
\n\t      tively aided the commission of suicide.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Counsel for the State was very critical of the  attitude
\nadopted\t by  the High Court in dealing with  the  case.\t His
\ncriticism to some extent is not unjustified.
\n    It may not be out of place to mention that “dowry” which
\nis a deep rooted social evil appears to be the cause of ever
\nso many unfortunate death of young ladies. It is an  offence
\nbrutal\tand barbaric. It is generally committed\t inside\t the
\nhouse and more often with a circumstance to give an  impres-
\nsion  that it was a suicidal death. There will be all  round
\nattempt\t to  cover  up such offence by\tthe  family  members
\nrather\tthan to expose it. The Government has  come  forward
\nwith legislations from time to time to protect women and  to
\npunish\tthose  who commit attrocities on them. In  1961\t the
\nDowry Prohibition Act (Act 28 of 196 1) was passed prohibit-
\ning the taking or giving dowry. By the Criminal Law  (Second
\nAmendment)  Act,  1983\t(Act 46 of 1983)  Chapter  XX-A\t was
\nintroduced in the Penal Code with sec. 498-A creating a\t new
\noffence of cruelty. It provides for punishment to husband or
\nhis  relatives if they harass a woman with a view to  coerce
\nher to meet any unlawful demand for property. Section 174 of
\nthe  Criminal  Procedure  Code was also\t amended  to  secure
\npost-mortem in
\n568<\/span>
\ncase  of suicide or death of a woman within seven  years  of
\nher  marriage.\tSection\t 113-A has been\t introduced  in\t the
\nEvidence Act, 1872 raising presumption of cruelty as defined
\nunder sec. 498-A IPC against the husband or his relatives if
\nthe wife commits suicide within a period of seven years from
\nthe  date  of  her marriage. These  provisions\treflect\t the
\nanxiety of the representatives of our people to deal  firmly
\nthe  menace  of\t dowry deaths.\tAgain,\tthere  are  sweeping
\nchanges made in the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
\nA  new\toffence\t called ‘Dowry death’ has  been\t created  by
\nintroducing sec. 304-B in the Penal Code. It raised presump-
\ntion of culpability against the husband or relative hitherto
\nunknown\t to  our jurisprudence. It provides that  where\t the
\ndeath  of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury  or
\notherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years
\nof  her marriage and it is shown that soon before her  death
\nshe was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or
\nany  relative of her husband for or in connection  with\t any
\ndemand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry  death’.
\nThe  section  also provides  hat such  husband\tor  relative
\nshall  be deemed to have caused her death and shall be\tpun-
\nished  with  imprisonment for a minimum of seven  years\t but
\nwhich may extend to life imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare referring to these provisions not that they\t are
\nattracted to the present case. It is only to emphasize\tthat
\nit  is\tnot enough if the legal order  with  sanction  alone
\nmoves  forward for protection of women and  preservation  of
\nsocietal  values. The criminal justice system  must  equally
\nrespond to the needs and notions of the society. The  inves-
\ntigating  agency  must display a live  concern\tand  sharpen
\ntheir  wits. They must penetrate into every dark corner\t and
\ncollect all the evidence. The Court must also display great-
\ner sensitivity to criminality and avoid on all counts  “soft
\njustice”.\n<\/p>\n
    In the instant case the trial court has considered every
\nmaterial  on  record in support of the\tcharge\tframed.\t The
\ntrial  court has also given reasons why a charge under\tsec.
\n302  IPC is warranted against Dilip even though\t the  police
\ncharge\tsheeted him under sec. 306 IPC. The High  Court\t has
\ngone on a tangent mainly relying on the dying declaration as
\nif it has been conclusively proved to be the true and faith-
\nful version of the deceased. Apart from that, we are  unable
\nto  compromise\tourselves  with the approach  made  and\t the
\nopinion\t expressed by the High Court in respect of  many  of
\nthe matters.\n<\/p>\n
    We wish to add a word regarding interference by the High
\ncourt against a charge framed by the Sessions Court. Section
\n227 which
\n569<\/span>
\nconfers\t power to discharge an accused was designed to\tpre-
\nvent  harassment to an innocent person by the arduous  trial
\nor  the ordeal of prosecution. How that intention is  to  be
\nachieved  is  reasonably clear in the  section\titself.\t The
\npower has been entrusted to the Sessions Judge who brings to
\nbear  his knowledge and experience in criminal\ttrials.\t Be-
\nsides, he has the assistance of counsel for the accused\t and
\nPublic Prosecutor. He is required to hear both sides  before
\nframing\t any charge against the accused or  for\t discharging
\nhim. If the Sessions Judge after hearing the parties  frames
\na charge and also makes an order in support thereof, the law
\nmust  be allowed to take its own course. Self  restraint  on
\nthe  part of the High Court should be the rule unless  there
\nis  a  glaring injustice stares the Court in the  face.\t The
\nopinion\t on any matter may differ depending upon the  person
\nwho views it. There may be as many opinions on a  particular
\nmatter as there are courts but it is no ground for the\tHigh
\nCourt  to  interdict the trial. It would be better  for\t the
\nHigh Court to allow the trial to proceed.\n<\/p>\n
    The counsel for the State was equally critical upon\t the
\ndischarge of Nathumal. It was argued that Nathumal being the
\nmanager of the family ought to have taken care of Chanda and
\nwithout\t his connivance, none would have demanded dowry\t and
\nput Chanda on fire. It is true that it is his obligation  as
\nmanager\t of the family to protect Chanda and  safeguard\t her
\nrights.\t We have no doubt that he has failed to perform\t his
\nmoral  obligation. But that by itself without anything\tmore
\nis not sufficient to frame a charge against him. We,  there-
\nfore, agree with the discretion exercised by the trial court
\nand leave it at that.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe result and for the reasons stated, we allow\t the
\ncriminal  appeals  to the extent indicated only\t as  against
\nDilip. We set aside the order of the High Court and  restore
\nthat  of the trial court. The appeals against  Nathumal\t are
\ndismissed.  His discharge is confirmed. We direct the  court
\nto proceed with the trial expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  parting with the case, we must place  on  record
\nthe useful service rendered by ‘Stri Atyachar Virodhi  Pari-
\nshad’ in this case. It is a social welfare organisation.  It
\nhas come up to this Court spending its own money by  prefer-
\nring the appeals. We very much appreciate the object of\t the
\norganisation and the assistance rendered-\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals    allowed\npartly.\n570<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 SCR (1) 560, 1989 SCC (1) 715 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: STREE ATYACHAR VIRODHI PARISHAD ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: DILIP NATHUMAL CHORDIA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/02\/1989 BENCH: SHETTY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nStree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\"},\"wordCount\":3073,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\",\"name\":\"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989","datePublished":"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989"},"wordCount":3073,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989","name":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-30T15:58:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stree-atyachar-virodhi-parishad-vs-dilip-nathumal-chordia-anr-on-8-february-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad … vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194532"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194532\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}