In a recent legal case, the court’s analysis highlighted the significance of judicial scrutiny in matrimonial disputes. The judgment emphasized the cautious approach required when dealing with cases involving allegations against family members. The court specifically discussed the need for specific allegations against accused family members to prevent abuse of the judicial process. This case sheds light on the importance of clarity and specificity in legal proceedings, especially in cases of matrimonial conflicts.
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellants argues that there are no material or specific allegations against the accused, thus allowing them to face trial would be an abuse of the legal process.
- The appellants seek to quash the proceedings by appealing the decision.
- On the contrary, counsel for the respondent-State and complainant argue that the names of the accused are specifically mentioned in the complaint and chargesheet, indicating that the proceedings should not be quashed at this stage.
- The postmortem report reveals the cause of death as asphyxia, providing no grounds to quash the proceedings.
- A previous quash petition filed by the deceased’s sister-in-law was dismissed by the Court on 15.04.2019.
- The appellants are required to prove their innocence during the trial, as they are accused of demanding dowry and causing injuries to the deceased, resulting in her death on 24.07.2018.
- The appellants argued that the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra case laid down important principles regarding submission of a chargesheet in cases of sexual assault
- They contended that the delay in filing the chargesheet in the present case was a violation of these principles
- The appellants relied on the Geeta Mehrotra case to emphasize the importance of a speedy trial in cases of sexual offenses
- They argued that the delay in the present case not only violated the rights of the accused but also resulted in a denial of justice to the victims
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Arbitration Order Quashed
Analysis
- The learned Judges held that none of the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainant’s husband who was not living with the family.
- The High Court was criticized for relegating the sister-in-law to trial when there was no specific allegation against her.
- The Court emphasized that family members of the husband should not be casually implicated in matrimonial disputes.
- The Court observed that taking cognizance in such cases leads to abuse of the judicial process.
- The judgment highlighted the importance of cautious approach in quashing proceedings in cases of matrimonial disputes.
- It was noted that the FIR must disclose specific allegations against the accused, especially in cases of overimplication by involving the entire family.
- In the case referred to as the Ramesh case, the Supreme Court held that bald allegations made against the sister-in-law appeared to be an attempt by the informant to implicate as many of the husband’s relatives as possible.
- Allegation of causing injuries but no external injuries noticed except ligature mark around the neck
- Cause of death determined as asphyxia
- Vague and bald allegations against the appellants with no specific involvement disclosed
- Judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. considered applicable to the appellants’ case
- Proceedings deemed fit to be quashed
Also Read: Land Dispute: Conviction Under Section 304(ii) IPC
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed and the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court in Application No.44475 of 2018 is set aside.
- The chargesheet no.01 dated 12.10.2018 filed in FIR No.136 of 2018 for various offences under IPC and the DP Act is quashed.
- The consequential order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur is also quashed.
- The offenses mentioned in the chargesheet include Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act.
Also Read: Analysis of Land Acquisition and Contempt Proceedings
Case Title: MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2021 INSC 890)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001628-001628 / 2021
