SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 795

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
Decided On : 14-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Vibha Datta Makhija, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Praveen Gaur, Karan Mamgain, Shaiya Khanna, Ibad Mushtaq, Akanksha Rai, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anuvrat Sharma, Mohd. Asad Khan. Shashank Singh, Anil Kumar Gupta, Anupam Choudhary, Danish Zubair Khan, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Court must guard against over-implication of distant relations in dowry offences.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty and dowry death – Cognizance of offence – Though there is allegation of causing injuries, there are no other external injuries noticed in post-mortem certificate, except single ante-mortem injury i.e. ligature mark around neck, and cause of death is shown as asphyxia – Appellants are brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased – Complaint does not indicate any specific allegations by disclosing involvement of appellants – Having regard to case of appellants and material placed on record, we are of the considered view that except vague and bald allegations against appellants, there are no specific allegations disclosing involvement of appellants to prosecute them for offences alleged – Charge-sheet quashed. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Facts of the case:

Present Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application No.44475 of 2018. Aforesaid application was filed before High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing Charge-sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 and order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of the case vide order dated 22.10.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. Act) in Case Crime No.0136 of 2018 registered on the file of PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

Findings of Court:

Impugned order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Application No.44475 of 2018 by the High Court, is set aside. Consequently, the charge-sheet no.01 dated 12.10.2018 filed in FIR No.136 of 2018 on file of PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and the consequential order dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, is hereby quashed.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application No. 44475 of 2018.

3. The aforesaid application was filed before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 01 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 and order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of the case vide order dated 22.10.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. Act) in Case Crime No. 0136 of 2018 registered on the file of P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

4. The 2nd respondent-complainant Shri Nisar Ullah father of the deceased, Rushda Nisar has lodged a complaint on 25.07.2018 at 09:31 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali, District Gorakhpur to the effect that his younger daughter namely Rushda Nisar was married to Mirza Ismail Beg alias Amir S/o Zaki Ullah R/o Mohalla-Muftipur of Gorakhpur District on 25.12.2015. After the solemnization of marriage, the accused persons Mirza Ismail Beg alias Amir (husband), brother-in-law (devar) Mirza Iqbal alias Golu (1st Appellant herein), sister-in-law (nanad) Hifza alias Chinki and mother-in-law (saas) Sammi (2nd Appellant) continuously used to demand a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash as dowry. It is alleged that as the said demands were not met, they used to beat his daughter and threatened to kill her. It is, further, alleged that ten days prior to the date of incident, all the accused persons with a common intention had severely beaten up his daughter and threatened to kill, if the demands of dowry of cash and car were not met. On being compelled, he had also given an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- cash from his business earning, in spite of the same, accused was adamant in demanding the car. On 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m., the accused persons with a common intention beat his daughter, killed her by putting a noose around her neck and hanged her. On coming to know of the incident, he went along with his son from Surat and he was shocked to see his daughter in such a state. When the situation has become slightly normal, he has lodged a report to take necessary action and to initiate legal proceedings against the accused. Based on the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against all the named accused including the appellants herein, who are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

5. When the appellants have filed quash petition before the High Court, it was disposed of by impugned order directing the appellants to surrender before the Court below and apply for grant of bail and the same was directed to be considered in accordance with law.

6. Pursuant to the complaint, crime was registered and after registration, investigation was taken up and after completing the investigation, final report was filed on 12.10.2018 and the same was taken cognizance by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 22.10.2018.

7. We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Sahdev Singh, learned counsel for State of Uttar Pradesh and Mohd. Asad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/Complainant.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the 1st Appellant herein, is brother-in-law of the deceased is working as a Cashier in ICICI Bank, Khalilabad. On the date of incident i.e. on 24.07.2018, he was on duty. It is submitted that he resides at Khalilabad in view of his employment in ICICI Bank and his mother-2nd Appellant Shamima Bano alias Sammi is also living with him at Khalilabad since 2017. It is submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the incident has taken place at about 8 p.m. at Gorakhpur, which is 40 kms. away from Khalilabad. On the date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top