Majhar @ Papoo And Ors. vs State

Delhi High Court
Majhar @ Papoo And Ors. vs State on 4 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002 (3) Crimes 90, 96 (2002) DLT 566, I (2002) DMC 510, 2002 (1) JCC 515
Author: K Gupta
Bench: K Gupta

JUDGMENT K.S. Gupta, J.

1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 15/2001 under Section 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 under Section 498-A, IPC against the petitioner. It was contended by Mr. M.N. Dudeja for State that criminal liability for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is sought to be fastened against the petitioners on the basis of second supplementry 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 bringing 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 under Section 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 Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., , 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 uncontroverter 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 under Section 498-A, IPCBara Hindu Rao and proceedings emanating there from including summoning order qua the petitioner are quashed/set aside.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s