MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 14-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 469
469
MIRZA IQBAL @ GOLU & ANR.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2021)
DECEMBER 14, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Death of married
woman – Matrimonial disputes – Bald allegations against family
members of husband – Complaint filed by 2nd respondent, father of
the deceased married woman, alleging that husband and in-laws of
the deceased, with a common intention beat her, killed her by putting
a noose around her neck and hanged her – Case registered against
all the named accused including first appellant (brother-in-law of
the deceased) and second appellant (mother-in-law of the deceased)
for alleged offences u/ss.498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and
ss.3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Held: Except vague
and bald allegations against the appellants, there were no specific
allegations disclosing the involvement of the appellants to prosecute
them for the offences alleged – Fit case to quash proceedings against
the appellants – IPC – ss.498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 304-B – Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 – ss.3 & 4 – Abuse of Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-
in-law respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the complaint
filed by the 2nd respondent (father of the deceased), pursuant to
which a crime was registered, does not indicate any specific
allegations by disclosing the involvement of the appellants. Even
in the statement of 2nd respondent recorded by the police and
also in the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., except
omnibus and vague allegations, there is no specific allegation
against the appellants to show their involvement for the offences
alleged. [Para 11][473-C-D, E-G]
1.2. Having regard to the case of the appellants and the
material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
that except vague and bald allegations against the appellants,
there are no specific allegations disclosing the involvement of
the appellants to prosecute them for the offences alleged. It is a
fit case to quash the proceedings. [Para 12][475-E-F]
Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : [2012]  9 SCR 641 –
relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 9 SCR 641
relied on
Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1628 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. Application u/s 482 No.44475 of
2018.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Praveen
Gaur, Karan Mamgain, Ms. Shaiya Khanna, Ibad Mushtaq, Ms. Akanksha
Rai, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sahdev Singh, Ms. Alka Sinha, Anuvrat Sharma, Mohd. Asad
Khan, Shashank Singh, Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Anupam Choudhary,
Danish Zubair Khan, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated
10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Application No.44475 of 2018.
3. The aforesaid application was filed before the High Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the Chargesheet No.01 of 2018
dated 12.10.2018 and order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance
of the case vide order dated 22.10.2018 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. Act) in Case Crime No.0136
of 2018 registered on the file of PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
4. The 2nd respondent – complainant Shri Nisar Ullah father of
the deceased, Rushda Nisar has lodged a complaint on 25.07.2018 at
09:31 p.m. at PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur to the effect that his younger
daughter namely Rushda Nisar was married to Mirza Ismail Beg alias
Amir s/o Zaki Ullah r/o Mohalla-Muftipur of Gorakhpur District on
25.12.2015. After the solemnization of marriage, the accused persons
Mirza Ismail Beg alias Amir (husband), brother-in-law (devar) Mirza
Iqbal alias Golu (1st Appellant herein), sister-in-law (nanad) Hifza alias
Chinki and mother-in-law (saas) Sammi (2nd Appellant) continuously used
to demand a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.10,00,000/- in cash as dowry.
It is alleged that as the said demands were not met, they used to beat his
daughter and threatened to kill her. It is,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.