K. Subba Rao . vs The State Of Telangana

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)

JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

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

Signature Not Verified the said complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections Digitally signed by

498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2018.08.21 17:25:48 IST Reason:

to as ‘the IPC’) at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad,

1 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.

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

2 Respondent who kidnapped the child from the custody of

the second Respondent and took him away to the U.S.A.

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. 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.

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

3 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. 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. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the

proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015,

4 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. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

.....................................J. [S.A. BOBDE]

.....................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, August 21, 2018.

5