Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Prosecution case that complainant alleged that she was in a relationship with the son of the appellants and established physical relations with him only on the assurance that he would marry her – On one occasion, the son of the appellants had taken her to meet them where they also agreed to accept her as their daughter in-law, but later, the son informed her that the appellants had fixed his marriage with someone else – Case of cheating against the appellants- parents and his son by the complainant – Petition u/s.482 by the appellants seeking quashing of the chargesheet in the criminal case qua them – High Court dismissed the petition – Correctness: Held: Trial against the appellants would be an abuse of the process of the court – From the allegations in the complaint itself, no act or conduct on the part of the appellants can be termed to be illegal per se, much less criminal in nature – No ingredients of any offence under the IPC appear to be forthcoming, as such, no offence under the ambit of s.415 IPC made out against the appellants – Submission that the appellants’ statement/conduct led the complainant to develop intimate relations with the son cannot be accepted, looking to the complainant’s age and educational qualification – From a bare perusal of the complaint, it is evincible that the main allegations are against the appellants’ son – Son had filed a petition u/s.482, which was later withdrawn – Grant of relief to the appellants would not adversely impact the case against the appellants’ son – Thus, the impugned judgment is set aside – Proceedings insofar as they relate to the appellants quashed. [Paras 9, 10, 12]
Judicial deprecation – High Court making observation against third party who is not before it – In a petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing the chargesheet in a criminal case, the High Court made unnecessary observation that if this petition is allowed, the petitioners’ son will spoil women of marriageable age in the same manner, is disapproved – High Court, should have been cognisant that the petitoners’ son was not party before it – Observation was made without any notice/opportunity to the petitioners’ son and without the benefit of having his say/version before it – Said observation/extract in the impugned judgment deleted from the High Court’s records. [Paras 15-17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain,. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.