01Facts
Respondent No. 2, who was married to the son of accused Nos. 3 and 4, alleged that on 15 March 2023 the petitioners—her in-laws and sisters-in-law—trespassed into her home, abused her, threatened her, and assaulted her.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 3She lodged her complaint three days later; police registered Crime No. 11/2023, filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 952/2023.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 3The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the complaint was a retaliatory counterblast to a complaint by accused No. 3, which had resulted in a separate prosecution against respondent No. 2, and to proceedings initiated by accused No. 3 before the Maintenance Tribunal.
p. 5 · ¶ 5Respondent No. 2 and the State opposed the petitions, relying on the charge sheet and witness statements.
p. 6 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet material disclosed offences under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–8ii.2. Whether, in light of the alleged delay, the general nature of the allegations, and the surrounding family dispute, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–803Law Applied
Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
The offences alleged were under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
The Court applied the principle that proceedings may be quashed where, even taking the charge-sheet allegations at face value, the material does not make out the charged offences against the accused.
p. 8 · ¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 504Section 506Section 323Section 34
04Reasoning
The Court noted the family dispute and the competing complaints between the parties.
p. 7 · ¶ 7It found that respondent No. 2’s complaint was lodged three days after the alleged incident and contained only bald and omnibus allegations, without specific averments against the petitioners.
p. 7 · ¶ 7Considering those circumstances, the Court viewed the complaint as a retaliatory counterblast.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–8It further held that, even if the charge-sheet material were accepted at face value, it disclosed no offence against the petitioners; continuing the prosecution would therefore constitute an abuse of process.
pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7–805Holding
The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and allowed both petitions.
p. 8 · ¶ 8It quashed the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 952/2023, arising from Crime No. 11/2023, for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
p. 8 · ¶ 8Original Court PDF
SMT M.L. DAMAYANTHIvsTHE STATE BY HARIHARAPURA POLICE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
