MUMBAI: Merely using her late brother’s SIM card doesn’t amount to an offence said the Bombay high court recently and quashed a first information report (FIR) against a woman accused by her sister-in-law of Criminal breach of trust and cheating for having used her late brother’s SIM card.
The accused is a doctor, said her lawyer Vinay Nair who argued that the FIR made out no offence and ought to be quashed.
The brother of the accused expired in April, 2020 after suffering from covid infection. His wife in October 2020 lodged a complaint alleging that her sister -in-law along with other co-accused, with common intention, committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The allegations against her were of “taking illegal custody of the postpaid sim-card” using it and handing it over to the complainant after having blocked it.
SA Shaikh, counsel for the complainant and prosecutor K V Saste argued that the offence was committed by the petitioner at two stages—first, of her having common intention with the other co-accused in disposing of the movables and not giving the income generated, to the widow and secondly, “illegal use of sim-card”, and returning it when blocked.
The HC said “as far as sale of movables is concerned, no role is attributed nor could be inferred” against the petitioner.
“Merely because the sim-card of real brother was used by the sister i.e. the present petitioner, that by itself will not constitute or amount to commission of the offence. The fact remains that to infer misuse of sim-card by the petitioner, there is no iota of evidence to infer such act. It is an admitted fact that the sim-card is duly received by the complainant from the petitioner before the date of lodging of the complaint,” said the HC bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and R N Laddha in their order on August 17.
The bench said, the FIR discloses no offence against the petitioner and added, “Once the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner who is a doctor would amount to abuse of process. Prima-facie, it appears that the criminal proceedings are initiated by the complainant against the petitioner solely out of family differences as could be inferred from the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner”.
Thus observing that ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot be inferred against the petitioner, the HC quashed the FIR and consequential charge-sheet registered against the petitioner.
The accused is a doctor, said her lawyer Vinay Nair who argued that the FIR made out no offence and ought to be quashed.
The brother of the accused expired in April, 2020 after suffering from covid infection. His wife in October 2020 lodged a complaint alleging that her sister -in-law along with other co-accused, with common intention, committed an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
The allegations against her were of “taking illegal custody of the postpaid sim-card” using it and handing it over to the complainant after having blocked it.
SA Shaikh, counsel for the complainant and prosecutor K V Saste argued that the offence was committed by the petitioner at two stages—first, of her having common intention with the other co-accused in disposing of the movables and not giving the income generated, to the widow and secondly, “illegal use of sim-card”, and returning it when blocked.
The HC said “as far as sale of movables is concerned, no role is attributed nor could be inferred” against the petitioner.
“Merely because the sim-card of real brother was used by the sister i.e. the present petitioner, that by itself will not constitute or amount to commission of the offence. The fact remains that to infer misuse of sim-card by the petitioner, there is no iota of evidence to infer such act. It is an admitted fact that the sim-card is duly received by the complainant from the petitioner before the date of lodging of the complaint,” said the HC bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and R N Laddha in their order on August 17.
The bench said, the FIR discloses no offence against the petitioner and added, “Once the FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioner, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner who is a doctor would amount to abuse of process. Prima-facie, it appears that the criminal proceedings are initiated by the complainant against the petitioner solely out of family differences as could be inferred from the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner”.
Thus observing that ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot be inferred against the petitioner, the HC quashed the FIR and consequential charge-sheet registered against the petitioner.
