a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand
of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be
weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus
allegation against all family members particularly
against brothers and sisters and other relatives do
not stand on same footing as husband and parents.
In such case, apart from general allegation of
demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that
harassment was also caused by all the named
members.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155
has held as under:-
“8. We must, at the outset, state that the High
Court’s view on jurisdiction meets with our approval
and we confirm the view. However, after a careful
perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration
the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it
relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be
quashed. The allegations are extremely general in
nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the
appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the
marriage, she resided with her husband at
Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2
and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The
marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2
left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a
period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent
took no steps to file any complaint against the
appellants. Six years after she left the house, the
present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and
general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is
important to remember that appellant 2 is a married
sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary
delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the
truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2
against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case,
general in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2
has tried to rope them in this case along with her
husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against
appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse
of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore,
the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates
to appellants 1, 2 and 3.”
If the facts of the present case are considered in the light
of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kansraj (Supra), Monju Roy (Supra), Geeta Mehrotara
(Supra), Preeti Gupta (Supra) and Chandralekha (Supra)
it would be clear that only vague and general allegations have
been made against the applicants. It is the specific case of
the applicants that they are residing at different and distant
places. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondent
no.2 by filing reply to this petition. The general allegations
which have been levelled by the complainant/respondent no. 2
are that after marriage for few months, she was kept properly
and thereafter, her in-laws including the applicants started
demanding Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they started
demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle. It is alleged that
when She gave birth to her girl child, nobody came to see her.
Her mother spent Rs. 4 lacs for the treatment of her child
which were saved by her mother for the marriage of her
younger sister. When she went back to her matrimonial
house, again all her in-laws demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a motor
cycle and said that either She should bring the amount and a
motor cycle or else she should give divorce to Saurabh. She
further admitted in her case diary statement that the
applicants no.1 and 2 are residing in Ahmedabad and went on
to allege that her husband has illicit relations with the
applicant no.2. As she had caught both of them red handed,
therefore, earlier She was beaten for this reason. She further
alleged that the applicant no.2 is a lady of loose character and
her father-in-law has also illicit relations with her. On 26-7-
2015 while She was doing her household work in her
matrimonial house, then her husband again demanded Rs. 2
lacs and a motor cycle and when She refused to fulfill his
demand then She was beaten by her husband by means of a
lathi and all of her in-laws slapped her. If the case diary
statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 is seen then it
would be clear that not only she made vague allegations
against the applicants, but She went to the extent
assassinating the character of applicant no.2 by saying that
She is of a loose character and has illicit relations with her
husband and her father-in-law, whereas there is no such
allegation in the F.I.R. The father and mother of the
respondent no.2 have not alleged that the applicant no.2 is of
a loose character having illicit relations with the husband and
father-in-law of the respondent no.2. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the only intention of the respondent no.2
is to some how prosecute as well as to defame them.
Therefore, this is a clear case of over implication of the near
relatives of husband of the respondent no.2.
Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if
the entire allegations are considered on their face value, then
there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and
they have been implicated merely because they happens to be
the near relatives of the husband of the respondent no.2 and
therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be proper
to compel the applicants to face the agony of criminal
prosecution.
Accordingly, the charge sheet and the criminal
prosecution of the applicants in criminal case No. 2338 of
2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Morena is hereby
quashed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SINGLE BENCH
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA
Misc. Criminal Case No. 3658 OF 2016
Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu & Ors.Vs State
of M. P. & Anr.
Dated:09/03/2017
The present application has been filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
2338/2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Distt. Morena for
offences punishable under Sections 498-A,323 of I.P.C. and
under Sections 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The facts necessary for the disposal of the present
application in short are that the complainant/respondent no. 2
lodged a F.I.R. against the applicants as well as against
Saurabh (Husband), Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod
(Mother-in-law) alleging that She is married to Saurabh as per
Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, her father
had given Rs. 1,11,000 in cash, apart from Fridge, Washing
Machine, Double Bed and all other household articles and gold
ornaments. Her in-laws kept her properly for near about 3-4
months but thereafter the applicants and her husband and
parents-in-law started demanding Rs. 50,000/-. After some
time, all started demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle.
When her parents refused to give the same, all her in-laws
started harassing her for want of dowry. They used to beat her
and even food was not given properly, and they used to say
that till, the respondent no.2 do not bring dowry, they will
continue to harass her. On 25-8-2012 She came back to her
parents house. She gave birth to a female child but no body
came there to see her. A panchayat was convened and
thereafter She came back to her matrimonial house. On 26-7-
2015, again all of her in-laws started harassing her and
beating her and a report was lodged by her. As She is still
being harassed by her in-laws therefore, F.I.R. was lodged.
The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge
sheet against the applicants and against Saurabh (Husband),
Veerpal (Father-in-law), and Smt. Vinod (Mother-in-law).
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the
applicant no.1 is elder brother-in-law (tsB), applicant no.2 is
the wife of applicant no. 1 (tsBkuh), applicant no.3 is sister-inlaw
(uun) and the applicant no.4 is the husband of applicant
no.3 (uunksbZ). It is submitted that the applicants no. 1 and 2
are residing in Ahmedabad (Gujarat) where the applicant no.2
is doing Sewing Course and his son Kunal is studying in Class
3
rd in R.H. Kapdia Primary School, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. The
certificate and the fee card of the child have also been placed
on record. Similarly the applicant no.3 is working as Asstt.
Teacher, Primary School Magarpura (Dabar) Kshetra Nadi
gaon, Jalon (Utter Pradesh). The appointment order and the
certificates have also been placed on record. The applicant
no.4 is working in a private company and at present he is
residing in Flat No. 4, Wahid Manzil, Near Jalram Mandir,
Anand Nagar, Vapi, distt. Balsad (Gujarat) where he is working
in Welspun India Limited, which is a private Company. The
appointment order, time statement etc. have also been placed
on record. Thus, it is the contention of the applicants that
they have been falsely implicated merely because they
happens to be the near relatives of Saurabh, the husband of
the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that no specific
allegation has been made against the applicants and only
vague and omnibus allegations have been made. It is further
submitted that the case of the near and distant relatives of
Husband stand on a different footing and therefore, unless and
until there are specific allegations against them, they should
not be compelled to face the trial and a tendency is increasing
in the society to falsely and overimplicate the relatives of the
husband so as to pressurize the husband.
Per Contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the
respondents, that there are sufficient allegations against the
applicants for their prosecution. It is further submitted by the
Counsel for the respondent no. 2 that the charges have been
framed and the case is fixed for recording of evidence on 24-
3-2017.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that
although charges have been framed and the recording of
evidence has also started, but merely because the charges
have been framed, this petition may not be dismissed. In
support of his contention, the Counsel for the applicant relied
upon judgments of Supreme Court passed in the case of
Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2012) 13 SCC 614 and submitted that if the allegations
made against the accused do not make out a prima facie case
against him/her, then compelling them to face the trial is
unwarranted.
The Supreme Court in the case of Satish Mehra
(supra) has held as under:-
“13. Though a criminal complaint lodged before
the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of
the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged
in the police station under Chapter XII of the
Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in
accordance with the procedure prescribed, power
has been conferred under Section 482 of the
Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event
the institution/continuance of the criminal
proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of
court. An early discussion of the law in this
regard can be found in the decision of this Court
in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab wherein the
parameters of exercise of the inherent power
vested by Section 561-A of the repealed Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to
Section 482 CrPC, 1973) had been laid down in
the following terms: (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal
proceedings against an accused may amount to
the abuse of the process of the court or that the
quashing of the impugned proceedings would
secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a
legal bar against the institution or continuance of
the said proceeding e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first information
report or the complaint taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute
the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence
alleged but there is either no legal evidence
adduced or evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.
14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the
threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is
inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that
in case the allegations made in the FIR or the
criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not
disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to
why the accused should be made to suffer the agony
of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets
protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become
lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of
justice as continuance thereof will amount to an
abuse of the process of the law. This is the core
basis on which the power to interfere with a pending
criminal proceeding has been recognized to be
inherent in every High Court. The power, though
available, being extra ordinary in nature has to be
exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts
and circumstances satisfy the narrow test indicated
above, namely, that even accepting all the
allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is
disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power
would be available for exercise not only at the
threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a
relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after
framing of the charge against the accused. In fact
the power to quash a proceeding after framing of
charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at
that stage, the materials revealed by the
investigation carried out usually comes on record
and such materials can be looked into, not for the
purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the
accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction
that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety,
do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of
the offence alleged against the accused.
15. The above nature and extent of the power finds
an exhaustive enumeration in a judgment of this
Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977)
2 SCC 699 which may be usefully extracted below :
(SCC pp. 702-03)
“7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's
argument is that in any event the High Court
could not take upon itself the task of assessing
or appreciating the weight of material on the
record in order to find whether any charges
could be legitimately framed against the
respondents. So long as there is some material
on the record to connect the accused with the
crime, says the learned counsel, the case must
go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction to
put a precipitate or premature end to the
proceedings on the belief that the prosecution is
not likely to succeed. This, in our opinion, is too
broad a proposition to accept. Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974,
provides that:
* * *
This section is contained in Chapter XVIII
called “Trial Before a Court of Session”. It is
clear from the provision that the Sessions Court
has the power to discharge an accused if after
perusing the record and hearing the parties he
comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be
recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The object of
the provision which requires the Sessions Judge
to record his reasons is to enable the superior
court to examine the correctness of the reasons
for which the Sessions Judge has held that there
is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. The High Court therefore is
entitled to go into the reasons given by the
Sessions Judge in support of his order and to
determine for itself whether the order is justified
by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Section 482 of the New Code, which
corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of
1898, provides that:
* * *
In the exercise of this wholesome power,
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding
if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the
process of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court's
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public
purpose which is that a court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
of harassment or persecution. In a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on
which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing
the proceeding in the interest of justice. The
ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere
law though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation
of the object and purpose of the provision which
seeks to save the inherent powers of the High
Court to do justice, between the State and its
subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate
the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction.”
16. It would also be worthwhile to recapitulate an
earlier decision of this court in Century Spinning &
Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Maharashtra (1972) 3
SCC 282 noticed in L. Muniswamy’s case (Supra)
holding that: (SCC p. 704, para 10)
“10 …. the order framing a charge affects a
person’s liberty substantially and therefore it is
the duty of the court to consider judicially
whether the materials warrant the framing of
the charge.
It was also held that the court ought not to blindly
accept the decision of the prosecution that the
accused be asked to face a trial.”
In the case of Ravikant Dubey and Others Vs. State
of M.P. and another reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (M.P.) 162
has held as under :
“8. In view of the above, the questions of law which
requires consideration are as follows:
(i) Whether petition preferred by the petitioners
under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the FIR
can be entertained, when trial has been started and
evidence of some witnesses have also been deposed
before the Trial Court ?
(ii) Whether evidence recorded by Trial Court during
trial can be considered for quashing the FIR ?
(iii) Whether any ground is available for quashing the
FIR in view of the facts and laws available on
record ?
Regarding question of law no. (i) :-
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that inherent powers can be used at any
stage to prevent abuse of process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It makes no
different whether trial has been started or not and
whether some evidence has been deposed before the
Trial Court or not. In support of his contention he
placed reliance in the case of Sathish Mehra (supra)
and Joseph Salvaraja Vs. State of Gujrat and others,
(2011) 7 SCC 59.
* * * *
12. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court
this petition is maintainable also even when trial is at
advance stage. The question is answered
accordingly.”
Thus, it is held that during the pendency of the petition
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if the charges have been framed
and even if some of the witnesses have been examined, the
petition can be decided on merits.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that
vague and omnibus allegations have been made against the
applicants and therefore, there is no prima facie evidence
against the applicants so as to compel them to face the ordeal
of Trial. The applicants no.1 and 2 are the residents of
Ahemdabad whereas the applicant no.3 is working on the post
of Asstt. Teacher and is based in Jalon (U.P.) whereas the
applicant no.4 is working in a private company and is residing
in Balsad (Maharashtra).
If the allegations made against the applicants are
considered, then it is clear that only vague and omnibus
allegations have been made against the applicants. The case
of the near and distant relatives of the husband stand on a
different footing than that of the husband and parents-in-law.
In order to prosecute the other relatives, there has to be some
specific allegations against them. General, Vague and Omnibus
allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to send the
other relatives of the husband who otherwise, does not have
anything to do with the family affairs of the complainant.
By relying on judgments passed by the Supreme Court in
cases of Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 741, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand,
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, it is submitted by the Counsel
for the applicants that there are to be some what specific and
clear allegations against the relatives of the husband. There is
an increasing tendency in the society to over implicate the
near and dear relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the
husband.
The Supreme Court in the case of Kansraj Vs. State of
Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207, has held as under :
“In the light of the evidence in the case we find
substance in the submission of the learned counsel
for the defence that Respondents 3 to 5 were roped
in the case only on the ground of being close
relations of Respondent 2, the husband of the
deceased. For the fault of the husband, the in-laws
or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to
be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where
such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed
to persons other than the husband are required to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere
conjectures and implications such relations cannot
be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry
deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased
wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the
prosecution even against the real culprits. In their
overenthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for
maximum people, the parents of the deceased have
been found to be making efforts for involving other
relations which ultimately weaken the case of the
prosecution even against the real accused as
appears to have happened in the instant case.”
The Supreme Court in the case Monju Roy Vs. State of
West Bengal, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 693, has held as
under :
“8. While we do not find any ground to interfere
with the view taken by the courts below that the
deceased was subjected to harassment on account
of non-fulfillment of dowry demand, we do find merit
in the submission that possibility of naming all the
family members by way of exaggeration is not ruled
out. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC
207, this Court observed : (SCC p. 215, para 5)
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for
roping in all relations of the in-laws of the
deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths
which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the
case of the prosecution even against the real
culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to
seek conviction for maximum people, the parents
of the deceased have been found to be making
efforts for involving other relations which
ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution
even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning
distant relatives without there being specific
material. Only the husband, his parents or at best
close family members may be expected to demand
dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations,
unless there is tangible material to support
allegations made against such distant relations. Mere
naming of distant relations is not enough to summon
them in absence of any specific role and material to
support such role.
9. In Raja Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand, (2007)
15 SCC 415, it was observed : (SCC p. 419, para 14)
“14. No doubt, some of the witnesses e.g. PW 5
Dashrath Singh, who is the father of the
deceased Gayatri, and PW 3 Santosh Kr. Singh,
brother of the deceased, have stated that the
deceased Gayatri told them that dowry was
demanded by not only Raja Lal Singh, but also
the appellants Pradip Singh and his wife Sanjana
Devi, but we are of the opinion that it is possible
that the names of Pradip Singh and Sanjana Devi
have been introduced only to spread the net wide
as often happens in cases like under Sections
498-A and 394 IPC, as has been observed in
several decisions of this Court e.g. in Kamesh
Panjiyar v. State of Bihar [(2005) 2 SCC 388],
etc. Hence, we allow the appeal of Pradip Singh
and Sanjana Devi and set aside the impugned
judgments of the High Court and the trial court
insofar as it relates to them and we direct that
they be released forthwith unless required in
connection with some other case.”
* * * * * *
11. The Court has to adopt pragmatic view and when
a girl dies an unnatural death, allegation of demand
of dowry or harassment which follows cannot be
weighed in golden scales. At the same time, omnibus
allegation against all family members particularly
against brothers and sisters and other relatives do
not stand on same footing as husband and parents.
In such case, apart from general allegation of
demand of dowry, the court has to be satisfied that
harassment was also caused by all the named
members.”
The Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2013 (1) UC 155
has held as under:-
“8. We must, at the outset, state that the High
Court’s view on jurisdiction meets with our approval
and we confirm the view. However, after a careful
perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration
the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion
that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it
relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be
quashed. The allegations are extremely general in
nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the
appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the
marriage, she resided with her husband at
Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2
and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The
marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2
left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a
period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent
took no steps to file any complaint against the
appellants. Six years after she left the house, the
present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and
general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is
important to remember that appellant 2 is a married
sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary
delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the
truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2
against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case,
general in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2
has tried to rope them in this case along with her
husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings against
appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse
of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore,
the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates
to appellants 1, 2 and 3.”
If the facts of the present case are considered in the light
of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Kansraj (Supra), Monju Roy (Supra), Geeta Mehrotara
(Supra), Preeti Gupta (Supra) and Chandralekha (Supra)
it would be clear that only vague and general allegations have
been made against the applicants. It is the specific case of
the applicants that they are residing at different and distant
places. This fact has not been rebutted by the respondent
no.2 by filing reply to this petition. The general allegations
which have been levelled by the complainant/respondent no. 2
are that after marriage for few months, she was kept properly
and thereafter, her in-laws including the applicants started
demanding Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter they started
demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a motor cycle. It is alleged that
when She gave birth to her girl child, nobody came to see her.
Her mother spent Rs. 4 lacs for the treatment of her child
which were saved by her mother for the marriage of her
younger sister. When she went back to her matrimonial
house, again all her in-laws demanded Rs. 2 lacs and a motor
cycle and said that either She should bring the amount and a
motor cycle or else she should give divorce to Saurabh. She
further admitted in her case diary statement that the
applicants no.1 and 2 are residing in Ahmedabad and went on
to allege that her husband has illicit relations with the
applicant no.2. As she had caught both of them red handed,
therefore, earlier She was beaten for this reason. She further
alleged that the applicant no.2 is a lady of loose character and
her father-in-law has also illicit relations with her. On 26-7-
2015 while She was doing her household work in her
matrimonial house, then her husband again demanded Rs. 2
lacs and a motor cycle and when She refused to fulfill his
demand then She was beaten by her husband by means of a
lathi and all of her in-laws slapped her. If the case diary
statement of the complainant/respondent no.2 is seen then it
would be clear that not only she made vague allegations
against the applicants, but She went to the extent
assassinating the character of applicant no.2 by saying that
She is of a loose character and has illicit relations with her
husband and her father-in-law, whereas there is no such
allegation in the F.I.R. The father and mother of the
respondent no.2 have not alleged that the applicant no.2 is of
a loose character having illicit relations with the husband and
father-in-law of the respondent no.2. Thus, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the only intention of the respondent no.2
is to some how prosecute as well as to defame them.
Therefore, this is a clear case of overimplication of the near
relatives of husband of the respondent no.2.
Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if
the entire allegations are considered on their face value, then
there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and
they have been implicated merely because they happens to be
the near relatives of the husband of the respondent no.2 and
therefore, under these circumstances, it would not be proper
to compel the applicants to face the agony of criminal
prosecution.
Accordingly, the charge sheet and the criminal
prosecution of the applicants in criminal case No. 2338 of
2015 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Morena is hereby
quashed.
The application succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
Judge
(09.03.2017)
No comments:
Post a Comment