Seenivasan vs The State By Inspector Of Police

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P (Crl.)No.10115 of 2018)

Seenivasan ...Appellant

Versus

The State by Inspector of Police & Anr. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused no.6

in C.C. No.196 of 2009 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, aggrieved by

the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P.No.16967 of 2010.

3. The aforesaid Crl.O.P. was filed by accused nos.5 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by to 7 before the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.08.23 17:12:15 IST Reason: to quash the proceedings issued against them. By the

1 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18

impugned order, the Crl.O.P. was dismissed qua the

appellant and allowed so far as accused no.7 is

concerned by quashing the proceedings. The 5 th accused

has died on 13.08.2016, as such, it was observed that no

case subsists against her.

4. The 2nd respondent herein had preferred complaint to

the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City on

11.04.2009 which was forwarded to the 1st respondent

basing on which a crime was registered against accused

nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.10 of 2009 and a final report was

filed before the trial court on 06.08.2009 arraying

totally seven accused. 1st accused is the husband of

the complainant; 2nd accused is the mother-in-law; 3rd

accused is the brother-in-law; 4th accused is the wife

of 3rd accused; 5th accused is the sister of the 2 nd

accused; 6th accused is the son of the 5th accused; and

7th accused is the wife of the 6th accused.

5. The Quash Petition was filed by accused nos.5 to 7

before the High Court mainly on the ground that they are

not the members of the family of the complainant and

they were residing at a different address, namely, 751,

Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore whereas accused nos.1 to 4

were residing at 880, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore.

2 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18

Appellant was sought to be prosecuted along with A-1 to

A-4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,

506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); Sections 4 and

6(b) of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406 of

the IPC.

6. We have heard Sri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Yogesh Kanna,

learned counsel appearing for the State. Inspite of

service of notice, there is no appearance by the 2nd

respondent-complainant.

7. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we

have perused the impugned order and other material

placed on record. The Quash Petition was filed before

the High Court by the A-5 to A-7. So far as A-5 is

concerned, as she died during the pendency of the

proceedings, cause did not survive. So far as A-7, who

is the wife of A-6, is concerned, the High Court has

observed that there are no specific overt acts against

her and she has been residing in a different address and

at no point of time she had been in a joint family

wherein the de facto complainant lived during the period

the alleged demand of dowry is said to have been made.

On the aforesaid ground, the High Court has quashed the

3 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18

proceedings so far as A-7 is concerned. So far as

appellant-A-6 is concerned, the petition is dismissed by

the High Court observing that there are some averments,

against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the

appellant-A-6, who is the husband of A-7, was residing

at a different address during the time alleged demand

was made. Further, we have perused the complaint filed

by the 2nd respondent. Mainly the specific allegations

are only against the husband and immediate family

members. So far as the appellant who is A-1’s paternal

uncle’s son, a bald allegation is made that he along

with his mother and wife were abusing the complainant.

In absence of any specific allegations against him, we

are of the view that the appellant also stands on same

the footing of A-7 against whom proceedings are quashed.

As the appellant was not even residing in the address of

the complainant and his family members who are A-1 to A-

4 and in absence of specific allegations and overt acts,

we are of the view that if the proceedings are allowed

to go on against the appellant, it amounts to abuse of

process. Applying the ratio laid down in the judgment of

this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v.

Bhajan Lal & Ors.1, we are of the view that it is a 1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

4 Crl.A. @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.10115/18

clear case which falls within one of the categories of

the aforesaid case where power can be exercised under

Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this

appeal and set aside the impugned order to the extent of

dismissing the petition filed in Crl.O.P.No.16967 of

2010 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madras

and consequently quash the proceedings qua the appellant

in C.C. No.196 of 2009 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore.

9. It is made clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on the allegations made against A-1 to A-4. It

is open for the trial court to record its own findings

after trial.

.....................J. [Abhay Manohar Sapre]

.....................J. [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi;

August 23, 2019

5