CRLP/996/2009 of Mohd. Feroz Nawaz Khan, (A-1), Vs Smt. Jabeena Begum, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quashthe proceedings in Crime No.84 of 2009 of SanathnagarPolice Station, Cyberabad.

Petitioners herein are all shown as accused in a privatecomplaint filed by the 1[st] respondent herein. She filed thatcomplaint in the court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur,Cyberabad and the court referred the said complaint to theSanathnagar Police Station for investigation and report.

As already mentioned supra, all the petitioners hereinare shown as A-1 to A-9 in the said case and they shall bereferred to in that array. The offences alleged against themare punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 4and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 IPC.

It may be noted that A-1 is the husband of thecomplainant and A-2 and A-3 are his elder brother and sister-in-law and it appears that as the parents of A-1 are no more A-2 and A-3 acted as elders in the family and performed themarriage of A-1 with the 1[st] respondent.

The complaint of the 1[st] respondent is that all theaccused harassed her for dowry. It should be noted that A-4

and A-5 are 21 years and 20 years old girls and they are saidto be sisters of A-1 and they are reported to be working asTeachers. A-6 is said to be the sister of A-3 who is sister-in-law of A-1, and A-7 and A-8 are said to be her sons, while A-9in the said is said to be mother of A-3 and A-6. Admittedly, A-6to A-9 are shown as residents of Vikarabad which is said to beaway from Hyderabad.

I have gone through the allegations in the complaint andonly general allegation is made with regard to the commissionof the alleged offence against A-4 to A-9. It is now well settledas observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it has becomea practice on the part of the complainant in a case of thisnature to array as many as members belonging to the family ofhusband and his relatives as accused as possible.

In the instant case, with regard to the allegations madein the complaint, I am of the opinion that as on today no caseis made out against A-4 to A-9. But, the allegations in thecomplaint do show offence against A-1 to A-3, which requireinvestigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the F.I.R. in questionagainst A-4 to A-9 is quashed and this petition is allowed partlyto that extent.

So far as A-1 to A-3 are concerned, the investigationmay go on. It is, however, made clear that this Court cannotfetter the hands of the investigation agency and in thecircumstances it is further made clear that subsequently in thecourse of investigation if the police happen to gather materialwhich shows the complicity of A-4 to A-9 or any other personsabout the alleged commission of offences they shall be atliberty to charge sheet them also.

This criminal petition is partly allowed to the extentindicated above.

Parting with the case, learned counsel for the petitionerssays that Sanathnagar Police Station has no jurisdiction to register this crime.

On the other hand, Ms.Farhath Firdous, learned counselappearing for the 1[st] respondent says that in fact in the privatecomplaint filed before the court of learned Magistrate, arequest was made to refer the matter to Miyapur PoliceStation, but the court referred the same to Sanathnagar PoliceStation.

It is not known why the court referred the matter toSanathnagar Police Station and whether a part of its territorialjurisdiction would fall within the local limits of IX MetropolitanMagistrate at Miyapur. The concerned police may getclarification on this point. Further, it should also be noted thatany Police Station even without having any territorialjurisdiction could register the crime and subsequently make itover to the Police Station concerned for further necessaryaction. Keeping in view the above legal position, theSanathnagar Police Station will act according to law.

____________________

N.RAVI SHANKAR, J.

31.12.2010kpr