Seema and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—A wife lodged a first information report against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband''s brother and two petitioners, who happen to be the wife of the husband''s brother and the sister of the husband.

The police after investigation, filed a charge-sheet (Crl. Case No. 1711 of 2003) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hapur District Ghaziabad.

In the statement recorded u/s 161, Cr.P.C, the wife, her father and mother and other witnesses did not name the petitioners as the culprits and the investigating officer was, therefore, of the view that they should be exonerated but the higher police authorities asked him, to include the name of the two petitioners in the charge-sheet and, therefore, the investigating officer re-examined the complainant''s wife Afsana, opposite party No. 2 (here) u/s 161, Cr.P.C, wherein, she named the two petitioners and thereafter a charge-sheet against the accused including the two petitioners was filed. The investigating officer made endorsement in the charge-sheet of this fact that the names of the two petitioners were included in the charge-sheet at the behest, of higher police officers, after re-examining the complainant wife.

The petitioners have now come to this Court u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for getting their names scraped as an accused in the commission of the crime and for proceedings against them being terminated.

It is important to notice that none of the witnesses including the complainant wife inculpated the two petitioners in their statements u/s 161, Cr.P.C. That is prima facie indicative of their non-involvement in the crime in question. For some unknown reasons, some higher police authorities asked the investigating officer to include the name of these two petitioners in the charge-sheet and for that purpose, the investigating officer re-examined the wife so that he could include the name of the two petitioners in the commission of crime and, thereafter, their names were included in the charge-sheet.

The circumstance that initially the complainant wife also did not mention the names of two petitioners in her statement u/s 161, Cr.P.C. is very significant, and it was only in her subsequent statement, that, she mentioned their names, and she was so examined subsequently for this very purpose, and that is why she took their names.

These circumstance speak loudly about the non-involvement of the two petitioners in that crime.

It is being increasingly observed and some observations have also been made by various Courts about the tendency of a large number of members of the family of husband being indiscriminately included in the commission of the crime. Courts have, therefore, to be cautious and, ensure that innocent persons, particularly ladies of the house are not, subjected to an unwanted criminal trial.

It will appear that even in her subsequent statement where the complainant wife was made to include the name of the two petitioners, she did not elaborate as to how she was harassed by them, or how they participated in the demand of dowry and she confined herself, merely to a vague and general statement to the effect that they also lent help and support to the demand of dowry.

There was, as such, no overt act on the part of the petitioners, on the basis whereof, it may be said that they were involved and harassed for the demand of dowry.

In the circumstances, it will be wholly unjust, to subject them to a criminal trial, and they deserve to be exonerated.

The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned proceedings against them shall stand terminated.

A copy of this order be sent by the Registry forthwith, to the Court concerned through the (Incharge) Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hapur for information and compliance.