Majhar @ Papoo and ors. Vs. State

Majhar @ Papoo and ors. vs State

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Dec 04, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/709259

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/709259
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: K.S. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Dec 04, 2001
Case Number: Crl. M.(M) No. 3090 of 2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case discussed the effect of the fact that the first information report (FIR) filed under Sections 154 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973, did not contained the allegation - It was observed that, the supplementary statement of the complainant could not be considered in its absence -The demand of dowry w...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Majhar @ Papoo and ors.

Advocate P.K. Nayyar, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate M.N. Dudeja, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A
Cases Referred: State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
Reported In: 2002(3)Crimes90; 96(2002)DLT566; I(2002)DMC510; 2002(1)JCC515

Excerpt

the case discussed the effect of the fact that the first information report (fir) filed under sections 154 and 482 of the criminal procedure code,1973, did not contained the allegation - it was observed that, the supplementary statement of the complainant could not be considered in its absence -the demand of dowry was alleged in the instant case, while the fir did not contained any allegations supporting the offence under section 498-a against the petitioners - it was held that, supplementary statements could only be considered if some allegations were made in the fir - thus in absence of same, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed - .....the petitioner and not otherwise. categories of cases wherein power under section 482, cr.p.c. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, have been summarised in para no. 108 on page 629 of the decision in state of haryana and ors. v. ch. bhajan lal and ors., : 1992 crilj527 , and categories 1 and 3 which are material, are reproduced below:'(1) where the allegation made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.(2) .....(3) where the uncontroverter allegations made in the fir or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.'3. obviously, present case is covered by the said categories and proceedings emanating from said fir no. 15/2001 and summoning order qua the petitioners, thus, deserve to be quashed/set aside.4. consequently, while allowing the petition, aforesaid fir no. 15/2001 under section 498-a, ipc bara hindu rao and proceedings emanating there from including summoning order qua the petitioner are quashed/set aside.

Full Judgment

K.S. Gupta, J.

1. In this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioners seek quashment of FIR No. 15/2001 under Section 498-A, IPC, PS Bara Hindu Rao as also setting aside of the order directing issuance of summons to them to face trial in the proceedings emanating from the said FIR.

2. Copy of FIR No. 15/2001 registered on 17th January, 2001 on the complaint of Smt. Guleshadabad made to in charge, Crime Against Women Cell, North District, is placed at page 24 to 26 whereas copy of complaint on the basis whereof FIR came to be registered is at pages 31 to 37 on the file. Indisputable, petitioners are the brothers-in-law (Devars) of Smt. Guleshadabad, complainant. It is also not in dispute that said FIR does not contain any allegation constituting the offence under Section 498-A, IPC against the petitioner. It was contended by Mr. M.N. Dudeja for State that criminal liability for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC is sought to be fastened against the petitioners on the basis of second supplementary statement of the complainant. It is alleged in this supplementary statement that the complainant's husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law-Munna, Majhar@Papoo, Mohsin@Guddu and Fazal-ur-Rehman as also sister-in-law used to ask her for bring in money from her parents and when she declined to do so, all of them beat and hurl filthy abuses to her. In my view, this statement could be considered when some allegations was made in the FIR/complaint against the petitioner and not otherwise. Categories of cases wherein power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, have been summarised in para No. 108 on Page 629 of the decision in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., : 1992 CriLJ527 , and categories 1 and 3 which are material, are reproduced below:

'(1) Where the allegation made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) .....

(3) Where the uncontroverter allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.'

3. Obviously, present case is covered by the said categories and proceedings emanating from said FIR No. 15/2001 and summoning order qua the petitioners, thus, deserve to be quashed/set aside.

4. Consequently, while allowing the petition, aforesaid FIR No. 15/2001 under Section 498-A, IPC Bara Hindu Rao and proceedings emanating there from including summoning order qua the petitioner are quashed/set aside.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Majhar @ Papoo and ors. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indi...

Criminal