MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

SC: 498a Chargesheet quashed even after hearing started.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3542 of 2018)
(Arising out of Diary No. 11816 of 2017)

THESIMA BEGAM AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.

Heard schooled warn for a parties finally.

Brief contribution heading to a filing of this interest are that a matrimony between de facto complainant i.e., RafeeK Nisa (respondent No. 2 herein), and Shajahan was solemnised on 23.04.2000. It appears that they could not put on good and some matrimonial disputes arose between a parties that ruptured a matrimonial relationship. Respondent No.2 done a censure to a Inspector of Police opposite her father Shajahan underneath Section 498A and Section 406 of a Indian Penal Code (IPC) review with Section 4 of a Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this complaint, she endangered her mother-in-law, brother-in-law as good as a appellants herein who are sister-in-law and father of a sister-inlaw.

After investigation, chargesheet was filed and in this chargesheet, names of a appellants were also included. The appellants during that theatre filed petition underneath Section 482 of a Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) for quashing of a chargesheet opposite them. The High Court deserted this petition vide sequence antiquated 22.04.2016 usually on a belligerent that conference in a box has begun and, therefore, a High Court would not meddle with a pronounced process.

A neat acquiescence is done by a schooled warn for a appellants that a de-facto complainant herself settled in her matter that she had endangered a appellants herein out of annoy and as distant as they are concerned, they had no purpose in a family brawl and they were not celebration in creation any direct of dowry. Relevant partial of a matter of a complainant reads as under:

“However my sister in law Thesimma, her husband
Sakariah, hermit in law’s mom namely Hajira Beevi
and tiny mom in law namely Saribu Nisha did not
interfere in to a brawl and not taken stairs and
help me to live together with my father therefore
having indignant over them we named their names in the
complaint and differently they did not do any problem
with me. My husband, mom in law and hermit in law
Mohamed Ajmir Saribu alone tormented me by demanding
dowry.”

In perspective of a aforesaid mount taken by a complainant herself, we see no pardonable reason for a Investigating Officer to wire in a appellants as good in a chargesheet. Interestingly, even in a chargesheet submitted by a Investigating Officer, she has really definitely settled that insofar as appellants are concerned, they were vital in unfamiliar country. Inspite thereof, a Investigating officer filed chargesheet opposite all a persons including a appellants, mechanically and but focus of mind.

See also  What is the difference between Desertion and Willful Separation?

We, accordingly, concede this interest and stifle a chargesheet insofar as appellants are concerned. The interest stands likely of.

[ A.K. SIKRI ]
[ ASHOK BHUSHAN ]
New Delhi;
April 02, 2018.

ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F we N D we A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 11816/2017
(Arising out of impugned final visualisation and sequence antiquated 22-04-2016 in CRLOP No. 6871/2016 upheld by a High Court of Judicature during Madras during Madurai)

THESIMA BEGAM ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ORS. Respondent(s)
(With IA No.112082/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.112083/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.112081/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING and IA No.1225/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 02-04-2018 This matter was called on for conference today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Ms. Sujatha Bayadhi, Adv.

UPON conference a warn a Court done a following

O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The interest stands likely of in terms of a sealed order. Pending applications mount likely of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed sequence is placed on a file.]

Leave a Reply

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

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

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…

See also  Publicising Domestic disputes, Lodging false complaints, Making frivolous allegations Amount to cruelty and are Grounds for divorce
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation