Tag Archives: FAKE CASE

498a Dowry case on 11 year old brother Inlaw, married sis Inlaw, 74 year father Inlaw sheer abuse of law. Quashed. P&H HC

Fake case filing wife ropes in 3 in laws without any proper evidence or case against them. The court finds the case a sheer ABUSE of the process of law. Especially the court notes the following ” … Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who got married on 04.02.1989 and has been residing in her matrimonial home since then and therefore, there is not even a remotest possibility that husband of the complainant was used to give beatings to her at the instance of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 was born on 12.07.1979 and was 11 years of age in March, 1990 when the complainant alleged that she was given beatings by her husband at the instance of petitioner No.2. Moreover, he had left for Canada in March, 1996 and is residing there since then. Similarly, petitioner No.3 aged 74 years had left for Canada in 1996 and is residing there since then with petitioner No.2. In such an eventuality, it is hard to believe that petitioners had harassed the complainant as alleged in the complaint.It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grand parents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades. The case in hand is also of similar nature..”

The sad saga borne out of Honorable COURT’s decree is given below

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea of Man Accused ...

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.13517 of 2018

Date of Decision:15.05.2020

Amarjit Kaur and others ….Petitioners

versus

Jaswinder Kaur and another ….Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:
Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.


JAISHREE THAKUR. J

  1. This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No.31861/13 dated 06.09.2012 and the summoning order dated 06.12.2016 whereby petitioners herein have been summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC and order dated 04.08.2017 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. Petitioners herein are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.1 Jaswinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant).
  2. In brief, the facts are that the abovesaid criminal complaint had been made by the complainant, who got married with Jaswant Singh on 05.08.1989. Jaswant Singh is none other than the real brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 and son of petitioner No.3. In the complaint it was averred that marriage was solemnized lavishly and a sum of `4 lakhs was spent thereon, apart from giving dowry articles, gold ornaments and other luxurious items. The complaint was made against the husband Jaswant Singh, Amarjit Kaur alleged to be second wife of Jaswant Singh, father-in-law Dilbagh Singh, mother-in-law Charan Kaur, brother-in-law Ranjit Singh and the sister-in-law Amarjit Kaur.
  3. It was further alleged that soon after the marriage, the accused persons named in the complaint started harassing the complainant on account of not bringing enough dowry and they raised a demand of Maruti 800 car along with an amount of `50,000/-. Though the complainant persuaded the accused persons with regard to inability of her parents to fulfill their demands, in the month of March, 1990, husband of the complainant at the instance of other accused gave her beatings and stated that she would have no place in the house if the demands are not fulfilled. Accused No.4 in the complaint i.e. mother-in-law of the complainant also raised a demand of gold ornament.
  4. On 24.07.1993, the complainant gave birth to a girl child namely Manjinder Kaur at Nawanshahar and entire expenses of the delivery were borne by parents of the complainant. It was alleged that after the birth of girl child, the mother-in-law raised a demand of `5 lakhs. The husband and petitioners herein along with mother-in-law taunted the complainant for not giving birth to a male child. In the year 2002, the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home and at that point of time, her mother-in-law took all gold ornaments and other articles belonged to the complainant. It was further alleged that on 24.01.2008, husband of the complainant at the instance of his family members turned her out of matrimonial home and on 23.02.2008 also left the daughter with the complainant at Jalandhar and threatened her of dire consequences if she made a complaint against him. In this regard, the complainant made a complaint to SSP, Nawanshahr on 15.04.2008 but no action had been taken. In the month of September, 2009, severe blows were given in her stomach by accused No.1 i.e. the husband. She came to know that her husband solemnized a second marriage with one Amarjit Kaur (who was made accused No.2 in the complaint) without taking any divorce from her. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A complaint was also made by her to the Commissioner of Police on 5.76.2012 but no action had been taken.
  5. In support of her complaint, complainant stepped into witness box as CW1 and examined one Balkiat Singh as CW-2 and Piar Kaur as CW3, who reiterated the version of the complaint. She placed on record photographs of her husband with second wife as Ex.C3 to C5 and copies of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her and against his second wife as Ex.C6 and C7 respectively. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar on appreciation of material placed before it, vide order dated 25.03.2013 summoned the husband to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and 494 IPC and the mother-in-law under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC whereas the other accused persons were discharged including the petitioners herein.
  6. The aforementioned order was challenged by the complainant in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar who vide order dated 02.02.2015 while noting the fact that there are specific allegations against accused No.3, 5 and 6 i.e. petitioners herein set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar and directed to pass appropriate summoning order after re-considering the evidence placed before him.
  7. Since the revisional court set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, the complainant filed a petition before this Court to the extent that since the husband and mother-in-law did not challenge their summoning order, the revisional court gravely erred in setting aside the order in toto. This Court vide order dated 21.08.2015 clarified that the summoning order passed by the trial Court against husband Jaswant Singh and mother-in-law Charan Kaur will not be deemed to have been set aside.
  8. The trial Court on reconsideration of the evidence before it passed order dated 06.12.2016 whereby accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 i.e. petitioners herein have also been ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC.
  9. Pursuant to the summoning order, notice were issued to the petitioners and since they did not put in appearance despite publication, they were declared as proclaimed offenders vide order dated 04.08.2017.
  10. Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that there is no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners in the complaint and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 25.03.2013 after appreciating the material placed before it gave a finding that no offence is made out against the petitioners herein and only summoned the husband and mother-in-law of the complainant to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 IPC. Even in the revision petition filed by the complainant against the aforementioned order, the revisional court failed to consider the fact that a right had been accrued in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate and therefore, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioners before setting aside the said order and gravely erred in remanding the matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration of the evidence. On remand, the trial Court failed to take into consideration that there is no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners in the complaint and in the absence of any specific allegation, a complaint is liable to be dismissed.
  11. He further contended that in pursuance to the summoning order dated 06.12.2016, summons issued to the petitioners were never served as the address of the petitioners given in the complaint by the complainant was incorrect as they were not residing at the said address at the relevant point of time. In support of his contention, he relied upon zimni orders dated 22.12.2016, 03.01.2017, 20.01.2017, 08.02.2017, 28.02.2017, 09.03.2017, 01.04.2017 and 24.04.2017 annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7 (colly). On the application moved by the complainant for effecting service upon the petitioners by way of substituted service, the trial Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 ordered the petitioners to be summoned by way publication. The proclamation published in the newspaper would show that petitioners No.2 and 3 were shown to be residents of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereas they were actually residing in Canada since 1996 and the said fact was very well in the knowledge of the complainant. Moreover, petitioner No.1 was residing in her matrimonial home at Roper and therefore, was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings. The proclamation was published on 16.07.2017 and petitioners were required to be appeared before the trial Court on 17.07.2017 i.e. the very next day after the publication made in the newspaper. Even order dated 04.08.2017 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed persons has been passed before the expiry of 30 days of the publication of proclamation on 16.07.2017, which is in violation of the provisions of Section 82 (1) and 82 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
  12. Per contra, Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-respondent No.1 supported the orders under challenge whereby petitioners have been ordered to be summoned to face trial and declared as proclaimed persons, while contending that the same have been passed on appreciation of material placed before the trial Court. The husband and the mother-in-law did not challenge the order whereby the husband had been ordered to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 494 IPC and the mother-in-law under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 IPC. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in para Nos.3, 5 and 6 of the complainant and therefore, they have rightly been summoned to face trial on the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.
  13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book.
  14. It is the conceded position on record that in the first round of appreciation of evidence, the trial Court vide order dated 25.03.2013 gave a finding that no offence as levelled in the complaint is made out against the petitioners herein and summoned only husband and the mother-in-law to face trial. The complainant challenged the said order in revision petition and the revisional court remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order qua petitioners after re-appreciation of evidence. On re-appreciation of evidence, the trial court vide order dated 06.12.2016 summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506 and 120-B IPC and in pursuance to summoning order when the petitioners had failed to appear before it, the trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2017 declared them as proclaimed persons.
  15. It would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not? Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go. The allegations levelled against the petitioners in paras No.3, 5 and 6 of the complaint are reproduced as under:-
    “3.That on showing the incapability to arrange for Maruti 800 car and more dowry articles, in the month of March 1990, the accused No.1 at the instance of respondents No.3 to 6 started giving merciless beatings to the complainant…….
  16. That it is also not out of place to mention here that the accused No.1, 3 to 6 used to taunt the complainant for not giving birth to a male child……..
  17. That on 24.1.2008 the accused No.1 at the instance of accused No.3 to 6 started beating the complainant and further turned out the complainant from her matrimonial house in bare three clothes………All the dowry articles and shtridhan belonging to the complainant is in custody of accused No.1, 3 to 6 and are using the same for their personal gain since then the complainant is living at the mercy of her brothers and widow mother.”
  18. A perusal of the aforementioned would reveal that there are no direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shrtidhan. The expression used is ‘at the instance of accused No.1’. The complainant has failed to bring on record any evidence to show that she had been physically abused by the petitioners or entrustment of any dowry article.
  19. Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who got married on 04.02.1989 and has been residing in her matrimonial home since then and therefore, there is not even a remotest possibility that husband of the complainant was used to give beatings to her at the instance of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 was born on 12.07.1979 and was 11 years of age in March, 1990 when the complainant alleged that she was given beatings by her husband at the instance of petitioner No.2. Moreover, he had left for Canada in March, 1996 and is residing there since then. Similarly, petitioner No.3 aged 74 years had left for Canada in 1996 and is residing there since then with petitioner No.2. In such an eventuality, it is hard to believe that petitioners had harassed the complainant as alleged in the complaint.
  20. It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grand parents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades. The case in hand is also of similar nature. The complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners regarding allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant or demanding dowry from her. The complaint does not disclose specific allegation against the petitioners except casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 quashed the FIR registered against the unmarried sister of the husband on the ground that prima facie case was not attracted against her in the absence of specific allegations.
  21. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the complaint No.31861/13 dated 06.12.2016 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the orders dated 06.12.2016 and 04.08.2017 qua petitioners are quashed.
  22. The petition is allowed accordingly.
    (JAISHREE THAKUR)

JUDGE

May 15, 2020

Pankaj*

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

ISRO spy case: Framed in Isro case, he died without hearing SC verdict | India News – Times of India

Framed in Isro case, he died without hearing SC verdict

977E3AB2-C7CA-4FEF-BEBF-06ADCC2EC8D3

BENGALURU: The TV screen in K Chandrasekhar’s HebbaL hospital room bore in bright, bold letters news he’d been waiting to hear for two decades. But he didn’t twitch, just lay motionless. Formerly India’s representative to Russian space agency Glavkosmos and one of the seven accused in the 1994

Isro spy case, Chandrasekhar, 76, slipped into a coma on Friday morning, hours before the Supreme Court announced a Rs 50 lakh compensation for Isro scientist Nambi Narayanan, another accused in the spy scandal.

Chandrasekhar, Nambi Narayanan and four others were exonerated by the Supreme Court in the false espionage case in 1998. “We tried to show him TV grabs of the news but he was unconscious and didn’t respond,” a distraught K Vijayamma, Chandrasekhar’s wife and ex-GM at HMT, said, adding, “It was the day he’d been waiting for but when it finally arrived, it was too late.”

On Sunday night, Chandrasekhar passed away and his family would never know if even a strain of the news that he lived to hear ever reached him. The 76-year-old had been in a private hospital for over a month due to prolonged illness. He breathed his last at 8.44pm in Hebbal hospital.

Working as India’s representative to Russian space agency Glavkosmos since 1992, Chandrasekhar spent the last two decades of his life in Vidyaranyapura, north Bengaluru, as a recluse after allegedly being tortured by Kerala police and IB.

What did they (Kerala police and IB sleuths) achieve in framing him? Who will be responsible for the trauma that we faced all these years? They ruined his career and our peace of mind. They attacked our house in Kerala, called him a traitor and harassed us. We want to know why they did it,” asked Vijayamma. The couple has no children. Family members said Chandrasekhar kept away from the limelight and lived a low-key life since the controversy broke out.

“He was shattered after the incident. He always said that time would prove his innocence. We were also confident that he was innocent. But he could not pursue the case since his wife was working in a central government establishment and he was worried it would affect her job as they were dependent on her income,” said a relative.

Sudhish Kumar, a close relative said: “I’ve seen him going abroad being part of various delegations and enjoying a lavish life but everything went for a toss after the spy case broke out. The financial implication was very huge.He was very much limited to the house”. Chandrasekhar was allegedly stripped in front of interrogators, harassed and physically abused when he was in the custody of Kerala police and IB sleuths.

Last Friday, the apex court ruled that the ISRO spy case was false and unnecessary, and granted Narayanan a compensation of Rs 50 lakh. The case first surfaced after scientists Narayanan and D Sasi were arrested in 1994 on charges of handing over India’s indigenous space technology to Pakistan.

In 1996, the CBI submitted to a Kerala court that the case was false, following which all the accused were discharged. Narayanan later alleged that the country’s intelligence officials were working in collusion with the CIA, with Isro being their primary target, and the scandal not only destroyed the careers of the accused scientists but also stalled work on the cryogenic engine development programme meant to power GSLV.
— Read on m.timesofindia.com/india/framed-in-isro-case-he-died-without-hearing-sc-verdict/articleshow/65849349.cms

11 standard girl falsely accuses professor of tying her with ropes & misbehaving !! CCTV footage proves professor innocent 😇 NO punishment to girl !!

Andhra Pradesh: CCTV footage saves innocent lecturer from disgrace

Hyderabad: CCTV cameras not only bring culprits to book but also save innocent people from cases. CCTV footage saved a young lecturer in a private college in Andhra Pradesh’s Anantapur district from disgrace but not before the girl’s relatives publicly thrashed the lecturer.

The unusual episode took place in Kadiri block. A junior intermediate (Plus one) girl did not attend her college last Thursday. As per procedure, the management informed her parents through SMS about her absence.

When she returned home late in the evening, her parents questioned her. She complained that her botany lecturer Ramesh Naik had misbehaved with her by driving her to the outskirts of the town, tying her hands and legs, and later dumping her under a railway bridge. She managed to escape and reach home with the help of locals.

The angry parents and relatives of the girl attacked Ramesh, tied him to a tree and beat him black and blue before taking him to the police station on Monday. In the interrogation, Ramesh pleaded innocence and requested the police to check with his college management if he was present in the college on the day.

“The college management, all his fellow lecturers and students confirmed to us that Ramesh was present in the college all through the day on Thursday. Then, we called for CCTV footage in which he was seen attending classes, sitting in the staff room and spending time in the office room. He did not leave till the college was over in the evening,” Kadiri urban police inspector K Gorantla Madhav told Mirror.

The girl then revealed to the police that she had gone out with a boy.

The police admonished the girl and her parents and set everyone free. But the girl’s father in repentance went to the college on Tuesday morning to apologise to the lecturer. The angry lecturers and students detained him for insulting Ramesh, who had a clean image among all.

“We sent police to the college to set the father free. We pacified both the parties. We are not registering any case in the interest of the girl’s future,” the inspector said.
— Read on bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/andhra-pradesh-cctv-footage-saves-innocent-lecturer-from-disgrace/articleshow/65583656.cms

UK based NRI arrested & old parents booked as his wife claimed “..beating for dowry..” 15 years after marriage :-( :-(

Married in 2003, with two kids aged 9 and 5, this NRI couple return to India for holidays. Wife files complaint to get entire in law’s family behind bars just “claiming” she was beaten for dowry , even though they are married for approx 15 years !!!

source : TIMES OF INDIA

NRI & parents held for beating wife over dowry | Rajkot News

rajkot

RAJKOT: A non-resident Indian (NRI) man, based in London was arrested on Tuesday after his wife lodged a complaint against him and his parents, accusing them of demanding dowry, as well as of mental and physical harassment.

Police arrested Rakshit Gandhi (40), booked his father Arvind Gandhi and mother Sarla Gandhi at Mahila police station in Rajkot following the complaint lodged by Rakshit’s wife Rushita (39) early this month. According to case details, Rushita and Rakshit had married in 2003 and have two children — a nine-year-old son and a daughter aged five.

Soon after marriage, Rushita left for London to live with Rakshit, who worked in a finance firm there. She too started working in a firm there. Her in-laws, Arvind and Sarla, used to frequently visit the couple in London. Rushita alleged in her complaint that initially her husband and in-laws used to mentally harass her by demanding dowry.
Later, they also started abusing her and even assaulting her physically. She alleged that her husband had even seized her passport so that she could not return to India. Police said that Rushita has also claimed that Rakshit took away her salary and gave her minimum amount for daily expenses. He did not even allow her to speak to her parents over phone. Rushita also mentioned one incident when she was beaten up after Rakshit caught her talking to her parents over phone.

About a month ago, the couple and their children came to Rajkot. Soon after arriving, Rushita left her husband and went to stay with her parents on Yagnik Road on July 28. She later lodged a complaint with the mahila police against her husband and in-laws. She alleged that her in-laws have also usurped the money and jewellery that her parents had given at the time of the marriage.

On hearing about the complaint, Rakshit and her parents threatened to kill her if she did not take back her complaint. Police sub-inspector N S Savaniya, who is investigating the case, said that they have arrested Rakshit and will be arresting the other accused soon.

Don’t rope in relatives in #Fake498a & other #Fake criminal cases! #498a & conspiracy 2 #kidnap kid filed on maternal uncles #quashed

//// 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.

..The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. ……////

SC_of_India_-_Retch

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016)

K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. …. Appellant(s)

Versus

THE STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ORS. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

  1. 1. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on 20.12.2015 alleging harassment by her husband and his family members including the Appellants who are the maternal uncles of her husband. She also complained of the kidnapping of her son by the husband. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad on the same day. The Appellants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the crime registered pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No.2. The High Court dismissed the said petition by its judgment dated 22.01.2016. The Station House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad was directed not to arrest the Appellants till the completion of the investigation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court by which the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by the Appellants was dismissed, they have filed the present appeal. https://bit.ly/2Mnll7H
  2. 2. A charge sheet was filed on 12.03.2017 under Sections 498A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC after completion of the investigation in Crime No.477 of 2015, Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad. The Appellants are shown as A-4 to A- 6. As per the charge sheet, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 married on 08.12.2008 and were mostly residing in the United States of America. There was a marital discord between them. The allegations against the Appellants are that they were supporting the third Respondent/husband who was physically and mentally torturing the second Respondent. The Appellants also conspired with the third Respondent who kidnapped the child from the custody of the second Respondent and took him away to the U.S.A.
  3. 3. During the course of hearing, we enquired with the learned Counsel for the State of Telengana whether a supplementary charge sheet was being filed against the Appellants. He produced a copy of the supplementary charge sheet dated 20.12.2017.
  4. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court. https://bit.ly/2Mnll7H
  5. 5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.
  6. 6. The counsel for the second Respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second Respondent were seized from the Appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall consideration of the contents of the charge sheet, supplementary charge sheet and the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the Appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420 and 365 IPC.
  7. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015, dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate.
  8. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

……………………………….J. [S.A. BOBDE]

……………………………….J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi,
August 21, 2018.