MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SMTI. TALAT NAZIA BEGUM V/S THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

SHILLONG, India, May 16 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment/order on April 15:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and the aforesaid petition is taken up for final disposal.

3. Learned Sr.GA waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Panthi waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.

4. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 (original complainant), seeks quashing of the FIR registered with the Lumdiengjri Police Station being P.S. Case No.138(10) of 2023 and the chargesheet, being chargesheet No.8 of 2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner, sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 (original complainant), lives separately in Assam and not in the matrimonial home of the respondent No.2. He submitted that taking the prosecution case as it stands from the FIR/chargesheet, no offences as alleged are disclosed qua the petitioner. He submits that having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana & ors v. Bhajanlal & ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, there is no impediment in quashing the proceeding i.e., the FIR/chargesheet qua the petitioner.

6. Learned Sr.GA appearing for the respondent No.1 opposed the petition. She submitted that the FIR as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC of the respondent No.2 discloses the alleged acts of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also opposed the petition. He submitted that the statement of the respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 also discloses the nature of allegations made by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner.

8. A few facts as are necessary to decide the petition are as under.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2. The petitioner is a married lady residing in Sonitpur District, Assam whereas, the respondent No.2 was residing with her husband and in-laws in East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. It is the respondent No.2's case, that she got married to the petitioner's brother in Shillong on 16th December, 2022 and that right from the beginning, the marriage ran into rough weather over demand of dowry. According to the respondent No.2 (original complainant), her husband and inlaws were demanding dowry from her and also ill-treating her for not complying with the demand. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.2 lodged an FIR with the Lumdiengjri Police Station as against her husband, in-laws including the petitioner alleging offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed as against all the accused, including the petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x1qUIIWXFEndxdbtpP5vjkCJBAPmqbjgT0y%2B0wF9DyTP&caseno=Crl.Petn./85/2025&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010018652025&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.