Summary
The Court quashed the charge sheet and cognizance order against the deceased wife’s brother-in-law and mother-in-law because the complaint, police report and other material contained only vague collective allegations rather than specific involvement. The brother-in-law’s separate employment and attendance were supported, and the mere possibility of reaching the incident location did not supply missing allegations. The medical record did not support the asserted additional injuries. Relatives were not immune from prosecution where specific acts disclosed complicity, but mechanically sending these appellants to trial would abuse the process.
Issues
- Whether vague collective allegations and the supporting material justified prosecution of the two appellant relatives.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power was exercised to prevent abuse where the allegations and final report did not specifically disclose the appellants’ involvement. (¶¶ 3, 11-13)
Held
- Naming relatives in a complaint or charge sheet did not itself justify a trial where the allegations failed to disclose their specific involvement. The Court applied the caution against mechanical prosecution on casual or omnibus references, while preserving prosecution where overt acts showed complicity. (¶ 11-12)
- The brother-in-law’s employment and attendance in another town were supported. The respondents’ assertion that he could have travelled to the incident location did not overcome the absence of specific allegations against the appellants. The medical findings also did not support the alleged additional injuries. These circumstances were assessed together rather than as a standalone conclusive alibi. (¶ 11-12)
- The High Court’s refusal of quashing was set aside, and the charge sheet and consequential cognizance order were quashed in relation to the two appellants. The decision did not adjudicate the other accused’s liability. (¶ 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and charge sheet and cognizance order quashed as against the two appellants.