Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Thesima Begam & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The Inspector of Police & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3542 of 2018) (Arising out of Diary No. 11816 of 2017)
Decided On : 02-04-2018
Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the marriage 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 well and some matrimonial disputes arose between the parties which ruptured the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Inspector of Police against her husband Shajahan under Section 498A and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this complaint, she implicated her mother-in-law, brother-in-law as well as the appellants herein who are sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and in this chargesheet, names of the appellants were also included. The appellants at that stage filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the chargesheet against them. The High Court rejected this petition vide order dated 22.04.2016 only on the ground that trial in the case has begun and, therefore, the High Court would not interfere with the said process. A neat submission is made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the de-facto complainant herself stated in her statement that she had implicated the appellants herein out of anger and as far as they are concerned, they had no role in the family dispute and they were not party in making any demand of dowry. Relevant part of the statement of the complainant reads as under: “However my sister in law Thesimma, her husband Sakariah, brother in law’s wife namely Hajira Beevi and small mother in law namely Saribu Nisha did not interfere in to the dispute and not taken steps and help me to live together with my husband therefore having angry over them I named their names in the complaint and otherwise they did not do any problem with me. My husband, mother in law and brother in law Mohamed Ajmir Saribu alone harassed me by demanding dowry.” In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the complainant herself, we see no justifiable reason for the Investigating Officer to rope in the appellants as well in the chargesheet. Interestingly, even in the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, she has very categorically stated that insofar as appellants are concerned, they were living in foreign country. Inspite thereof, the Investigating officer filed chargesheet against all the persons including the appellants, mechanically and without application of mind. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the chargesheet insofar as appellants are concerned. The appeal stands disposed of.
ORDER :
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the marriage 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 well and some matrimonial disputes arose between the parties which ruptured the matrimonial relationship. Respondent No.2 made a complaint to the Inspector of Police against her husband Shajahan under Section 498A and Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In this complaint, she implicated her mother-in-law, brother-in-law as well as the appellants herein who are sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and in this chargesheet, names of the appellants were also included. The appellants at that stage filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the chargesheet against them. The High Court rejected this petition vide order dated 22.04.2016 only on the ground that trial in the case has begun and, therefore, the High Court would not interfere with the said process.
5. A neat submission is made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the de-facto complainant herself stated in her statement that she had implicated the appellants herein out of anger and as far as they are concerned, they had no role in the family dispute and they were not party in making any demand of dowry. Relevant part of the statement of the complainant reads as under:
“However my sister in law Thesimma, her husband Sakariah, brother in law’s wife namely Hajira Beevi and small mother in law namely Saribu Nisha did not interfere in to the dispute and not taken steps and help me to live together with my husband therefore having angry over them I named their names in the complaint and otherwise they did not do any problem with me. My husband, mother in law and brother in law Mohamed Ajmir Saribu alone harassed me by demanding dowry.”
6. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the complainant herself, we see no justifiable reason for the Investigating Officer to rope in the appellants as well in the chargesheet. Interestingly, even in the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, she has very categorically stated that insofar as appellants are concerned, they were living in foreign country. Inspite thereof, the Investigating officer filed chargesheet against all the persons including the appellants, mechanically and without application of mind.
7. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the chargesheet insofar as appellants are concerned.
8. The appeal stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
