Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045  of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016)

K. SUBBA RAO & ORS.                                          .... Appellant(s)                                                                                    

Versus

THE  STATE  OF  TELANGANA  REP.  BY  ITS  SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND ORS.

                                            ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.   

1. Respondent  No.2  submitted  a  complaint  to  the

Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, District Hyderabad

on 20.12.2015 alleging harassment by her husband and his

family  members  including  the  Appellants  who  are  the

maternal uncles of her husband.  She also complained of

the kidnapping of her son by the husband.  On the basis of

the said complaint,  an FIR was registered under Sections

498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the IPC’) at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad,

1

District Hyderabad on the same day.    The Appellants filed

a  petition  under  Section  482  Cr.  P.C.  for  quashing  the

proceedings  in  the  crime  registered  pursuant  to  the

complaint of Respondent No.2.   The High Court dismissed

the said petition by its judgment dated 22.01.2016.  The

Station  House  Officer,  Chandanagar  Police  Station,

Cyberabad was directed not to arrest the Appellants till the

completion  of  the  investigation.    Aggrieved  by  the

judgment  of  the  High Court  by which the petition under

Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by the Appellants was dismissed,

they have filed the present appeal.    2. A  charge  sheet  was  filed  on  12.03.2017  under

Sections 498A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC after completion of the

investigation in Crime No.477 of 2015, Chandanagar Police

Station, Cyberabad.  The Appellants are shown as A-4 to A-

6.    As  per  the  charge  sheet,  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3

married  on  08.12.2008  and  were  mostly  residing  in  the

United  States  of  America.   There  was  a  marital  discord

between them.  The allegations against the Appellants are

that  they  were  supporting  the  third  Respondent/husband

who  was  physically  and  mentally  torturing  the  second

Respondent.  The Appellants also conspired with the third

2

Respondent who kidnapped the child from the custody of

the second Respondent and took him away to the U.S.A. 3. During the course of  hearing,  we enquired with  the

learned  Counsel  for  the  State  of  Telengana  whether  a

supplementary  charge sheet  was  being  filed  against  the

Appellants.   He  produced  a  copy  of  the  supplementary

charge sheet dated 20.12.2017. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary

charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not

the  immediate  family  members  of  the  third

Respondent/husband.  They are the maternal uncles of the

third Respondent.    Except the bald statement that they

supported  the  third  Respondent  who  was  harassing  the

second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with

the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A.,

nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was

mentioned.   The  Appellants  approached  the  High  Court

when the investigation was pending.  The charge sheet and

the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of

the case by the High Court.    5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by

us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of

process of a Court.  This Court, at the same time, does not

3

hesitate  to  interfere  to  secure  the  ends  of  justice.   See

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC

335.   The Courts should be careful in proceeding against

the  distant  relatives  in  crimes  pertaining  to  matrimonial

disputes and dowry deaths.   The relatives of the husband

should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations

unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime

are made out.  See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors.

(2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and

Anr. v.  State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC

551.             6. The counsel for the second Respondent submitted that

certain  documents  belonging  to  the  second  Respondent

were seized from the Appellants which would show their

active involvement in the kidnapping of her child.  On an

overall consideration of the contents of the charge sheet,

supplementary charge sheet and the submissions made on

behalf of the Respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that a

prima  facie  case  has  not  been  made  out  against  the

Appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498

A, 120 B, 420 and 365 IPC. 7. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  we  quash  the

proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015,

4

dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365

IPC  registered  at  Chandanagar  Police  Station,  Cyberabad

before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally

at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate.      8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  

                               .....................................J.

                                                                     [S.A. BOBDE]             

                 .....................................J.

             [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi, August 21, 2018.

5