Fill in the following details to e-mail
To
Cc
Subject
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> <br /> Supreme Court <br /><br /> Relatives of husband should not be roped in on basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in crime are made out<br /><br /> MANU/SC/0880/2018 - (21 Aug 2018)<br /><br /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">K. Subba Rao and Ors. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE"><strong>In instant case, Respondent No. 2 submitted a complaint to the Police Station, Cyberabad, alleging harassment by her husband and his family members including the Appellants who are the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). <br><br> The Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing the proceedings in the crime registered pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No. 2. The High Court dismissed the said petition. The Station House Officer was directed not to arrest the Appellants till the completion of the investigation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court by which the petition under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the Appellants was dismissed, they have filed the present appeal. <br><br> A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court. <br><br> Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. The proceedings qua the Appellants under Sections 498A, 120B, 420, 365 of IPC quashed. Appeal allowed.</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong></strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ><strong>Tags : FIR, Proceedings, Quashing</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <!--<td><strong>Source : <a target="_new" href="http://www.manupatrafast.com/">newsroom.manupatra.com</a></strong></td>--> <td align="left" valign="top"><strong>Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>