IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016)
K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. …. Appellant(s)
THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ORS.….Respondent(s)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. Respondent No.2 submitted a censure to a Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on 20.12.2015 alleging nuisance by her father and his family members including a Appellants who are a maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of a abduction of her son by a husband. On a basement of Signature Not Verified a pronounced complaint, an FIR was purebred underneath Sections 498 A of a Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) during Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on a same day. The Appellants filed a petition underneath Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing a record in a crime purebred pursuant to a censure of Respondent No.2. The High Court discharged a pronounced petition by a visualisation antiquated 22.01.2016. The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad was destined not to detain a Appellants compartment a execution of a investigation. Aggrieved by a visualisation of a High Court by that a petition underneath Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by a Appellants was dismissed, they have filed a benefaction appeal.
2. A assign piece was filed on 12.03.2017 underneath Sections 498A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC after execution of a review in Crime No.477 of 2015, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad. The Appellants are shown as A-4 to A-
6. As per a assign sheet, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 married on 08.12.2008 and were mostly staying in a United States of America. There was a marital conflict between them. The allegations opposite a Appellants are that they were ancillary a third Respondent/husband who was physically and mentally torturing a second Respondent. The Appellants also conspired with a third Respondent who kidnapped a child from a control of a second Respondent and took him divided to a U.S.A.
3. During a march of hearing, we enquired with a schooled Counsel for a State of Telengana either a extra assign piece was being filed opposite a Appellants. He constructed a duplicate of a extra assign piece antiquated 20.12.2017.
4. A examination of a assign piece and a extra assign piece discloses a fact that a Appellants are not a evident family members of a third Respondent/husband. They are a maternal uncles of a third Respondent. Except a bald matter that they upheld a third Respondent who was badgering a second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with a third Respondent for holding divided his child to a U.S.A., zero else indicating their impasse in a crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached a High Court when a review was pending. The assign piece and a extra assign piece were filed after ordering of a box by a High Court.
5. Criminal record are not routinely interdicted by us during a interlocutory theatre unless there is an abuse of routine of a Court. This Court, during a same time, does not hesitate to meddle to secure a ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335. The Courts should be clever in move opposite a apart kin in crimes regarding to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The kin of a father should not be roped in on a basement of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their impasse in a crime are done out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.
6. The warn for a second Respondent submitted that certain papers belonging to a second Respondent were seized from a Appellants that would uncover their active impasse in a abduction of her child. On an altogether care of a essence of a assign sheet, extra assign piece and a submissions done on interest of a Respondent No.2, we are of a opinion that a prima facie box has not been done out opposite a Appellants for move opposite them underneath Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420 and 365 IPC.
7. For a aforementioned reasons, we stifle a record qua a Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015, dated 20.12.2015 underneath Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC purebred during Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before a Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally during Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate.
8. The interest is accordingly allowed.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi, Aug 21, 2018