Quash Petition Dismissed: Case Summary of accused nos. 5 to 7

In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a Quash Petition filed by accused nos. 5 to 7 has been dismissed. The case, which originated from a complaint filed in 2009, involved various sections of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused no. 6 in the case, who was residing at a different address during the alleged demand of dowry, filed a criminal appeal against the High Court’s order. Let’s delve into the details of this case and the Court’s decision.


  • Leave granted to hear the appeal.
  • The High Court received a Quash Petition from accused nos. 5 to 7.
  • Accused nos. 5 to 7 claimed they were not part of the complainant’s family and resided at a different address.
  • Accused nos. 1 to 4 were residing at a separate address.
  • Appellant faced charges under various sections of the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
  • Appellant’s counsel and State’s counsel were heard.
  • No appearance from the complainant.
  • Order dismissed the Quash Petition for the appellant and allowed for accused no. 7, while noting the death of accused no. 5.
  • Complaint was filed in 2009 leading to the registration of a case against all seven accused.
  • The accused no.6 in C.C. No.196 of 2009 filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
  • The High Court had passed the order in Crl.O.P.No.16967 of 2010 which was filed by accused nos. 5 to 7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
  • The Crl.O.P. was filed to quash the proceedings issued against accused nos. 5 to 7.

Also Read: Hyatt Hotel vs. The State of India: Corporate Liability and Vicarious Responsibility


  • Appellant A-6 was residing at a different address during the alleged demand of dowry.
  • A-5 passed away during the proceedings, leading to the cause not surviving.
  • High Court quashed proceedings against A-7 due to lack of specific allegations.
  • A-6’s petition was dismissed with some averments against him but no specific allegations.
  • A-6 stands on the same footing as A-7 with quashed proceedings against.
  • No specific allegations or overt acts against A-6 in the complaint filed by the respondent.
  • A-6 not residing with the complainant’s family and absence of specific allegations led to the view of abuse of process if proceedings continued against him.
  • Main allegations are against the husband and immediate family members, not including A-6.
  • Bald allegation made against A-6 of abusing the complainant along with his mother and wife.
  • A-7 had no specific overt acts against her, resided at a different address, and was not part of the joint family where alleged demands were made.
  • The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dismissing the petition in Crl.O.P.No.16967 of 2010 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madras is set aside.
  • The proceedings against the appellant in C.C. No.196 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, are quashed.
  • No opinion has been expressed on the allegations made against A-1 to A-4.

Also Read: State of West Bengal vs. Respondents: Abetment of Suicide Case


  • The trial court has the authority to record its own findings post-trial.
  • This allows for the trial court to present its own determinations and conclusions.
  • It is within the trial court’s discretion to analyze the evidence and make independent judgments.

Also Read: Judgment in Crl. Revision Petition No. 02/2011


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001268-001268 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *