P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Shakuntala and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (04 Jun 2019)

Vague and general allegations not enough to incriminate remote relatives of husband

MANU/MH/1308/2019

Criminal

The Applicants preferred present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking relief to quash and set aside the First Information Report (FIR) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Learned counsel for Applicants submits that, the Applicants had no concern with the alleged crime nor they have any involvement in it. There are no prima facie circumstances on record to implicate the present applicants in this crime. The question that arises is, whether the FIR registered against applicant can be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

Allegations cast on behalf of complainant against Applicants No. 3 to 6 (distant relatives) are vague and general in nature. There are no specific allegations in regard to overt-act for maltreatment and harassment to the complainant. There were no detail particulars given in the FIR about participation of these Applicants No. 3 to 6 for their act of humiliation or insult to the complainant on account of her character. Allegations about scolding are also stray and sweeping in nature.

The Honourable Apex Court in the case of-Kansraj Vs. State of Punja and others observed that a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In the cases, where accusations are made, the overt-acts attributed to persons other than husband, are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Apex Court further observed that, "in their over-enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused."

The Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others held that "where the proceedings is instituted with an ulterior motive or were the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/FIR". Moreover, if the allegations in the FIR against the applicants are taken at their face value and accepted the same in its entirety would not constitute any offence or make out case against Applicants, in such circumstances, there would not be any propriety to allow the prosecution to proceed further into the matter.

In the instant case, it would unjust and improper to allow the prosecution to proceed against Applicant Nos. 3 to 6. The ends of justice would be served by ensuring that, the applicants may not be forced unnecessarily to go on litigations before the Criminal Court. Hence, penal proceeding initiated against them deserves to be quashed and set aside. Application in respect of applicant Nos. 1 and 2, stands disposed of as withdrawn. Application allowed partly.

Relevant : Kansraj Vs. State of Punja and others MANU/SC/0296/2000, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others. MANU/SC/0115/1992

Tags : FIR   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved