The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy opined that this Court, time and again, has noticed making the family members of husband as accused by making casual reference to them in matrimonial disputes and the contents do not disclose their active involvement. Taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process.
Facts
The 2nd respondent–complainant Shri Nisar Ullah lodged a complaint that his younger daughter namely Rushda Nisar was married to Mirza Ismail Beg alias Amir. After the solemnization of marriage, the accused persons (husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law) continuously used to demand a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash as dowry. As the said demands were not met, they used to beat his daughter and threatened to kill her. Ten days prior to the date of incident, all the accused persons with a common intention had severely beaten up his daughter and threatened to kill if the demands of dowry of cash and car were not met. On being compelled, he had also given an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- cash from his business earning, despite the same, accused was adamant in demanding the car.
On 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m., the accused persons with a common intention beat his daughter, killed her by putting a noose around her neck and hanged her. On coming to know of the incident, he went along with his son from Surat and was shocked to see his daughter in such a state. When the situation became slightly normal, he lodged a report to take necessary action and to initiate legal proceedings against the accused.
Procedural History
Based on the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against all the named accused including the appellants herein, who are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased for the alleged offences u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“D.P. Act”). When the appellants filed quash petition before the High Court, it was disposed of by impugned order directing the appellants to surrender before the Court below and apply for grant of bail and the same was directed to be considered in accordance with law. Pursuant to the complaint, crime was registered and after registration, investigation was taken up and after completing the investigation, final report was filed on 12.10.2018 and the same was taken cognizance by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 22.10.2018. The aforesaid application was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC. for quashing the Chargesheet No.01 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 and order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of the case vide order dated 22.10.2018
Contentions made
Appellant: They are sought to be prosecuted, without any specific allegations either in complaint or in the chargesheet. During the pendency of investigation, the appellant filed affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Gorakhpur, stating that he was in the Bank on the date of incident and requested to investigate by looking into the call details of his mobile number and CCTV footage of the bank. His sister-in-law i.e., the deceased was under mental depression and was undergoing treatment for the same. Despite such an affidavit filed by the appellants without any investigation, final report was filed with vague and omnibus allegations against them. In absence of any specific allegations against the appellants disclosing their active involvement, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in a routine and mechanical manner. If they are allowed to face the trial, it is nothing but abuse of the process of law. It is evidently a fit case to quash the proceedings, by allowing the appeal.
Respondent: In view of specific mention of the names in the complaint as well as in the chargesheet, it is not a case to quash the proceedings at this stage. The appellants must prove their innocence in the trial. All the accused were demanding dowry with a common intention, all of them caused injuries to the deceased and ultimately killed her. As the post-mortem report clearly reveals cause of death as asphyxia, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Further, the quash petition filed by the sister-in-law of the deceased was also dismissed.
Observations of the Court
Having heard the learned counsels on both the sides, carefully perused impugned order, other material placed on record and counter affidavits filed, the Bench observed that:
“A perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. Even in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and in the final report filed u/s 173(2) of CrPC., except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences alleged.”
Relying on its own judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. it was observed that:
“This Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the proceedings by observing that family members of husband were shown as accused by making casual reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is held that many family members are shown in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the contents do not disclose their active involvement, as such, taking cognizance of the matter against them was not justified. It is further held that taking cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of judicial process.”
Judgment
This appeal was allowed, and the impugned order by the High Court was set aside. The chargesheet filed in FIR for the offences u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and the consequential order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was hereby quashed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
