Saturday, July 6, 2013

Husband dies after wife's 498a. 498a a counterblast to husband's divorce case. Still case against husband's sisters persists. Sisters run to high court seek quash. The whole case of the wife seems to be make belive as even the date of marriage is false. Unfortunately the police charge sheet is a complete copy of the complaint with NO PROPER investigation... Police charge sheet also has the wrong marriage date !!



* Husband dies after wife's 498a.
* THE VERY 498a seems to be a counterblast to husband's divorce case and is filed immediately after the divorce case
* marriage since 2002 and parties are getting relief in 2012 ...meaning 10 years lost !!
* Still case against husband's sisters persists AFTER husband's deat..i.e. till 2012.
* Sisters run to high court & seek quash.
* The whole case of the wife seems to be make belive as even the date of marriage is false.
* Unfortunately the police charge sheet is a complete copy of the complaint with NO PROPER investigation... Police charge sheet also has the wrong marriage date !!

HONBL'E HIGH COURT QUASHES THE CASE !!


**********************************************

CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NET

***********************************************




HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR      

Criminal Petition No.10942 of 2009

26-7-2012

U.Mahalakshmi, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad   and another  

The State of Andhra Pradesh,  Rep. by Police, Women Police Station, Nalgonda,

Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar

Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Case referred: Nil.

Order:

        The petitioners seek for quashment of C.C.No.282 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Cases), Nalgonda. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent laid complaint against three accused.  The 1st accused is her husband.  Accused 2 and 3, who are the elder sisters of the 1st accused, are the petitioners in this petition.  The 2nd respondent laid a complaint making allegations against the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  The same was registered as Crime No.80 of 2007 on the file of the Women Police Station, Nalgonda.  Subsequently, charge-sheet was laid.  The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class took the case on file as C.C.No.282 of 2008. The petitioners consequently seek for the quashment of the case.

        2. The marriage between the 2nd respondent and the 1st accused was solemnized on 03-4-2002 as can be seen from the copy of the Wedding Card. However, in the complaint, the 2nd respondent claimed that the marriage was solemnized on 03-4-2001.  Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the whole complaint is a make believe story and that the 2nd respondent did not even mention the correct date of the marriage.  I am afraid that the date of marriage as shown in the complaint perhaps was a typographical mistake as the date of marriage was on 03-4-2002 whereas it was shown in the complaint that the marriage was solemnized on 03-4-2001.

        3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Police did not conduct proper investigation and that they blindly followed the complaint, so much so, the charge-sheet also discloses as if the marriage was solemnized on 03-4-2001.  I do not wish to go into this controversy at this stage.

        4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as no overt acts were attributed against the accused 2 and 3, who are the petitioners herein, the case against the accused 2 and 3 is liable to be closed. He also submitted that when the 1st accused, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent, breathed his last, prosecuting his sisters-accused 2 and 3 is nothing but abuse of process of law.  The complaint alleged that the petitioners instigated the husband of the 2nd respondent to demand further dowry.  The complaint further alleged that the 2nd respondent was driven out of the house by her husband and by the petitioners. In respect of the conduct of the petitioners, there is no time or date of the incident.  A bald and sweeping allegation is made against the petitioners that they instigated their brother to demand more dowry and that they joined their brother in driving out the 2nd respondent from the matrimonial home.

        5. In both the circumstances, the husband of the 2nd respondent is the main culprit; the petitioners 1 and 2 more or less are abettors.  When the case against the main accused stands abetted on account of the death of the main accused, I am afraid that it is not just and reasonable to proceed against the petitioners.

        6. Further, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are bald and do not call for any prosecution against the petitioners.

        7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that this case was foisted by the 2nd respondent as a counter-blast to the divorce case filed by the 1st accused. While the 1st accused filed a case for divorce against the 2nd respondent in April, 2007, the complaint in the present case was filed on 17-5-2007.  Again, I do not deem it appropriate to consider this aspect where the petition is liable to be disposed of otherwise.

        8. As already pointed out, the allegations against the petitioners in the complaint are bald and superficial.  I, therefore, consider it appropriate to hold that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners from the complaint of the 2nd respondent where the husband of the 2nd respondent, who was the 1st accused, is no more.  I consider that this criminal petition deserves to be closed against the petitioners as the same became superfluous on account of the death of their brother.  The criminal petition consequently is allowed.  The case in C.C.No.282 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excises Cases), Nalgonda, against the petitioners 1 and 2 stands quashed.


___________________  

K.G.SHANKAR, J.  

26th July, 2012.


*******************************************************************

 

This judgment and other similar judgements posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgement or the judgement itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

********************************************************************************