🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Majhar @ Papoo and Others Vs State

Case No: Criminal M. (M) No. 3090 of 2001

Date of Decision: Dec. 4, 2001

Acts Referred: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 498A

Citation: (2002) 3 Crimes 90 : (2002) 96 DLT 566 : (2002) 1 DMC 510 : (2002) 1 JCC 515

Hon'ble Judges: Kripa Shankar Gupta, J

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: P.K. Nayyar, for the Appellant; M.N. Dudeja, for the Respondent

Final Decision: Allowed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

K.S. Gupta, J.@mdashIn this petition u/s 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 15/2001 u/s 498-A, IPC, PS Bara Hindu Rao

as also setting aside of the order directing issuance of summons to them to face trial in the proceedings emanating from the said FIR.

2. Copy of FIR No. 15/2001 registered on 17th January, 2001 on the complaint of Smt. Guleshadabad made to in charge, Crime Against Women

Cell, North District, is placed at page 24 to 26 whereas copy of complaint on the basis whereof FIR came to be registered is at pages 31 to 37 on

the file. Indisputable, petitioners are the brothers-in-law (Devars) of Smt. Guleshadabad, complainant. It is also not in dispute that said FIR does

not contain any allegation Constituting the offence u/s 498-A, IPC against the petitioner. It was contended by Mr. M.N. Dudeja for State that

criminal liability for the offence u/s 498-A, IPC is sought to be fastened against the petitioners on the basis of second supplementary statement of

the complainant. It is alleged in this supplementary statement that the complainant''s husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law-Munna,

Majhar@Papoo, Mohsin@Guddu and Fazal-ur-Rehman as also sister-in-law used to ask her for bring in money from her parents and when she

declined to do so, all of them beat and hurl filthy abuses to her. In my view, this statement could be considered when some allegations was made in

the FIR/complaint against the petitioner and not otherwise. Categories of cases wherein power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent

abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, have been summarised in para No. 108 on Page 629 of the decision in State

of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , and categories 1 and 3 which are material, are reproduced below:

(1) Where the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) .....

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

3. Obviously, present case is covered by the said categories and proceedings emanating from said FIR No. 15/2001 and summoning order qua

the petitioners, thus, deserve to be quashed/set aside.

4. Consequently, while allowing the petition, aforesaid FIR No. 15/2001 u/s 498-A, IPC Bara Hindu Rao and proceedings emanating there from

including summoning order qua the petitioner are quashed/set aside.