Investigating officer filed chargesheet against all persons including appellants, mechanically — Chargesheet quashed.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Bench: JUSTICES A.K. Sikri & Ashok Bhushan

THESIMA BEGAM AND ANR.Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS

Law Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498A, 406 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 4 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Cruelty — Criminal breach of trust — Quashing of charge sheet — De-facto complainant herself stated that she had implicated appellants out of anger — They had no role in family dispute — They were not party in making any demand of dowry — No justifiable reason for Investigating Officer to rope in appellants as well in chargesheet — Even in chargesheet submitted by Investigating Officer, she has very stated that insofar as appellants are concerned, they were living in foreign country — Inspite thereof, Investigating officer filed chargesheet against all persons including appellants, mechanically — Chargesheet quashed.

JUDGEMENT

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. 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 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2018 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.

3. 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.”

4. 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 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2018 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.

5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and quash the chargesheet insofar as appellants are concerned.

The appeal stands disposed of.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.

3. Pending applications stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us