AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of charge-sheet bearing No.62/2014 dated 22.04.2015 for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 495 and 120-B I.P.C.
Briefly stated, the respondent â€" Smt. Sunita Sharma had lodged a F.I.R. bearing No.366/2014 at Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur for offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 495 and 120-B I.P.C. against her husband â€" Dilip Sharma.
Petitioner is a younger brother of the husband of the complainant/aggrieved-wife.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused has submitted that in the entire charge-sheet, no specific allegation has been levelled against
the petitioner. It is submitted that on the basis of general, vague and omnibus allegations the petitioner has been sent for the trial.
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, could not point out any specific
allegation against the petitioner in the entire charge-sheet.
It will be pertinent to note here that the Co-ordinate Bench on 09.11.2016 while issuing notice had stayed the proceedings, qua the petitioner by
observing as under :-
“Learned Counsel for petitioner Mr. SL Sharma submits that petitioner-accused is younger brother-in-law of respondent no.2/complainant against
whom no specific allegation is levelled in FIR. The whole family of in-laws of respondent no.2 have been implicated in false FIR. He submits that on
the basis of barred allegations, he cannot be implicated in false case.
Learned Counsel relied on Sundar Babu & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2087 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that :-
Complaint by wife alleging offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act found to be maliciously instituted
with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with view to spite him due to private and personal grudge and on this ground the same
was quashed.
Heard.
Issue notice.
Learned PP Mr. Jitendra Shrimali accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1-State. Notice of respondent no.2/complainant be served through
Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur.
Rule is made returnable within 6 weeks. Â
Till then, further proceedings qua petitioner shall remain stayed.â€
During the course of arguments, ld. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and ld. counsel appearing for the complainant could not dislodge the
observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the order dated 09.11.2016 by referring to any material to the chargesheet.
Taking totality of circumstances, especially the relations of the petitioner and the fact that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner,
the present petition is accepted and the impugned F.I.R., along with charge-sheet, qua the petitioner is, hereby, quashed.