Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with the Telangana High Court's decision to quash an FIR filed by a senior citizen woman against her granddaughter and the father-in-law of her own son. The charges included extortion, illegal confinement, criminal intimidation, and other offenses under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih held that the view taken by the Telangana High Court that the FIR deserved to be quashed against the fourth (granddaughter) and fifth (father-in-law of son) respondents could not be faulted with as the allegations against them were bald.

Appellant Aruna stated that her husband Dhanyakumar Doshi died on February 24, 2020. She claimed on September 4, 2017, the appellant and her husband executed a registered gift deed by which they gifted an immovable property and a residential house to the fourth respondent, their granddaughter. 

On October 16, 2017, the appellant and her husband executed a deed of rectification to correct the mistake that crept into the description of the property in the gift deed. 

Another gift deed was executed by the appellant and her husband on November 7, 2017, by which they gifted a flat/apartment in Hyderabad to the second respondent (their son) and 4th respondent (granddaughter).

The appellant alleged that on March 29, 2019, her husband addressed a letter to the District Magistrate and District Commissioner of Hyderabad Urban District alleging that their son and daughter-in-law had been harassing and threatening him and the appellant and that they forced them to execute gift deeds of their valuable properties. 

The appellant's husband also alleged that his son and daughter-in-law had threatened him not to disclose the execution of gift deeds. He was afraid of revealing the said facts to anyone. He also alleged that respondents were ill-treating his younger son. Therefore, the appellant’s husband requested the District Magistrate to cancel the gift deeds. In the letter, the appellant’s husband mentioned that his confidant shall post the letter only after his death.

The appellant's case was that when her daughter Sangita visited Hyderabad, her husband handed her a copy of the letter of March 29, 2019. 

On November 7, 2020 and on November 12, 2020, the appellant’s daughter - Sangita, addressed letters to Adarshnagar Colony Police Station at Hyderabad and Saidabad Police Station at Hyderabad, respectively, complaining about the fact that the appellant's son and daughter-in-law were ill-treating the appellant and that they had confined her to the house. 

The appellant signed a document on November 24, 2020 wherein she declared that her life was in danger as she was apprehending some actions by her son and daughter-in-law. Another complaint was filed by the appellant on December 7, 2020 to the Commissioner of Police Saidabad, Telangana, making similar allegations. 

On January 17, 2021, the FIR was registered based on the complaint made by the appellant.

All the accused, the appellant's son and daughter-in-law and granddaughter and father-in-law of the son filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC but the High Court on June 1, 2021 allowed the plea only with regard to the granddaughter and father-in-law of the son.

Assailing the High Court's order, the appellant's counsel contended that when the investigation of the impugned FIR was at a nascent stage, the High Court ought not to have interfered at this stage. He submitted that an FIR cannot be treated as a compendium of the prosecution case. 

The power of quashing should not have been exercised without allowing the police to investigate the offence, he said, claiming the appellant and her husband were made to stay in the atmosphere of terror.

The respondents claimed that the prosecution at the instance of the appellant was a complete abuse of the process of law, and the view taken by the High Court did not call for any interference.

Going by the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out that only general allegations had been made that the fourth and fifth respondents were acting hand in hand at the instance of the son and daughter-in-law.

"This is the only allegation made against the 4th and 5th respondents. In the complaint dated 11th January 2021 made by the appellant, there is a bald allegation that the 2nd to 5th respondents compelled herself and her husband to execute the gift deeds. It is also stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were ill-treating her other son, Akshay," the bench noted.

The court also found there was a delay involved in the registration of FIR.

The letter of March 29, 2019, which was relied upon by the appellant and addressed by her husband, showed that on March 29, 2019, her deceased husband was aware of the two gift deeds executed by him and the appellant. 

The appellant’s husband complained about the gift deeds after a gap of 16 months from the date of the execution of the second gift deed, it noted. 

The appellant’s first complaint was on November 24, 2020. 

"Apart from this delay, after having perused not only the letters/complaints of the appellant but also the letters addressed by her husband and daughter, we find that the appellant has not made any allegation against the 4th and 5th respondents ascribing them any specific role. The role allegedly played by the 4th and 5th respondent is within the special knowledge of the appellant. She cannot improve upon what she said in her earlier complaints/letters even if the investigation proceeds against them," the bench said.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding no case was made out to interfere in the present matter.

Case Title: Aruna Dhanyakumar Doshi Vs The State of Telangana & Ors