MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Relatives of a Husband should not be Roped in on a basement of Omnibus Allegations

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)

Versus

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ORS.….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

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.

READ  Whether Court can refuse to set aside Exparte decree considering previous conduct of defendant?

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.

READ  What is scope of interference of higher court during arbitration proceeding?

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.

[S.A. BOBDE]

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi, Aug 21, 2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Territorial jurisdiction,matrimonial offence in Section 498A IPC
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation