Geeta Mehrotra and Anr vs State Of U P and Anr on 17th October 2012 in Supreme Court of India
Family members of a man-Husband should not be implicated in
a dowry Cases.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 3, Section 4
The Indian Penal Code: Section 323, Section 498A, Section
504, Section 506
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 320, Section 468, 468(1), Section
468(2), Section 482
Ramesh And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 March, 2005:
Supreme Court of India
G.V. Rao vs L.H.V. Prasad & Ors on 6 March, 2000 --
Supreme Court of India
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13
March, 2003 -- Supreme Court of India
____________________________________________________
24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution
that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are
allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family
named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we
wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not
disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear
abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused
in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific
allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence
alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found
to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is
the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if
the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of
law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in
matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR
in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal
accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by
involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant,
who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish
of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
26. The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have
missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still
left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial
when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the
allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant
demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to
consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could
have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made
out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the
FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the
complainant’s husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be
just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for
consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the
unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal
of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not
disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to
quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be
constituting any offence against these two appellants.
Merely by making a general allegation that they were also
involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2
without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to
how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother
and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside
the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and
consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The
appeal accordingly is allowed.
_____________________________________________________
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1674 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010)
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. . Respondents
J U D G M E N T
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.
1. This appeal by special leave in which we granted leave
has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Miscellaneous Application
No.22714/2007 whereby the High Court had been pleased to dispose of the
application moved by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the
order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellants under Sections
498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an
observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided
by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts. It was,
therefore, left open to the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the
proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court
however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the
authorities not to issue coercive process against the appellants until disposal
of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the
trial court to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a
period of two months from the date of moving the application. The application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus disposed of by the High Court.
2. The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to
move the trial court, have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which
had been initiated on the basis of a case lodged by the respondent No.2 Smt.
Shipra Mehrotra (earlier known as Shipra Seth) against her husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. This appeal has
been preferred by the sister-in- law, who is appellant No.1 and brother-in-law
of the complainant, who is appellant No.2.
3. The case emerges out of the first information report
lodged by respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra under Sections 498A/ 323/ 504/ 506
IPC read with Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act bearing F.I.R.No.
52/2004. The F.I.R. was registered at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad wherein
the complainant alleged that she was married to Shyamji Mehrotra s/o Balbir
Saran who was living at Eros Garden, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Suraj Kund
Road at Faridabad Haryana as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs. Prior to
marriage the complainant and her family members were told by Shyamji Mehrotra
and his elder brother Ramji Mehrotra who is appellant No.2 herein and their
mother Smt. Kamla Mehrotra and her sister Geeta Mehrotra who is appellant No.1
herein that Shyamji is employed as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in
Chennai and is getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month. After negotiation
between the parents of the complainant and the accused parties, the marriage of
the complainant Shipra Seth (later Shipra Mehrotra) and Shyamji Mehrotra was
performed after which the respondent-complainant left for the house of her in-
laws.
4. It was stated that the atmosphere in the house was
peaceful for sometime but soon after the wedding, when all the relatives left,
the maid who cooked meals was first of all paid-off by the aforesaid four
persons who then told the complainant that from now onwards, the complainant
will have to prepare food for the family. In addition, the above mentioned
people started taunting and scolding her on trivial issues. The complainant
also came to know that Shyamji was not employed anywhere and always stayed in
the house. Shyamji gradually took away all the money which the complainant had
with her and then told her that her father had not given dowry properly,
therefore, she should get Rupees five lakhs from her father in order to enable him
to start business, because he was not getting any job. When the complainant
clearly declined and stated that she will not ask her parents for money,
Shyamji, on instigation of other accused-family members, started beating her
occasionally. To escape every day torture and financial status of the family,
the complainant took up a job in a Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where
the complainant had to do night shifts due to which she used to come back home
at around 3 a.m. in the morning. Just on her return from work, the household
people started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to getup at 7’o
clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all the members in the
family. Often on falling asleep in the morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta
Mehrotra tortured the complainant every day mentally and physically. Ramji
Mehrotra often provoked the other three family members to torture and often
used to make the complainant feel sad by making inappropriate statements about
the complainant and her parents. Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary
from the complainant.
5. After persistent efforts, Shyamji finally got a job in
Chennai and he went to Chennai for the job in May, 2003. But, it is alleged
that there was no change in his behaviour even after going to Chennai. The
complainant often called him on phone to talk to him but he always did
irrelevant conversation. He never spoke properly with the complainant whenever
he visited home and often used to hurl filthy abuses. The complainant states
that she often wept and tolerated the tortures of the accused persons for a
long time but did not complain to her family members, as that would have made
them feel sad. At last, when the complainant realized that even her life was in
danger, she was compelled to tell everything to her father on phone who was
very upset on hearing her woes. On 15.7.2003 complainant heard some
conversation of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from which it appeared to
her that they want to kill the complainant in the night only. Thereupon the
complainant apprised her father of the situation on phone to which her father
replied that he will call back her father-in-law and she should go with him
immediately and he will come in the morning. The father-in-law Satish Dhawan and
his wife who were living in NOIDA thereafter came in the night and somehow took
the complainant to their home who also came to know of everything. The
complainant’s father and brother later went to her matrimonial home on
16.7.2003. On seeing her father and brother, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra
started speaking loudly and started saying that Shyamji would be coming by the
evening and so he should come in the evening for talking to them. Her father
and brother then went away from there. That very day, her husband Shyamji and
brother-in-law Ramji also reached home. On reaching there, Shyamji abused her
on phone and told her to send her father.
6. When father and brother of the complainant went home in
the evening, they were also insulted by all the four and video camera and tape
were played and in the end they were told that they should leave from here.
Insulted, they came back from there and then came back to Allahabad with the
complainant. For many days the complainant and her family members hoped that
the situation would improve if the matter was resolved. Many times other people
tried to persuade the in – laws but to no avail. Her brother went to their
house to talk to her in – laws but it came to his knowledge that the in – laws
had changed their house. After much effort, they came to know that the
father-in- law and mother-in-law started living at B-39, Brahma cooperative
group housing society, block 7, sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi. On 19.09.04 evening,
her father talked to Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra regarding the
complainant using bad words and it was said that if her daughter came there she
will be kicked out. After some time Shyamji rang up at complainant’s home but
on hearing the complainant’s voice, he told her abusively that now she should not
come his way and she should tell her father not to phone him in future. At
approximately 10:30 pm in the night Ramji’s phone came to the complainant’s
home. He used bad words while talking to her father and in the end said that he
had got papers prepared in his defence and he may do whatever he could but if
he could afford to give Rs.10 lakhs then it should be conveyed after which he
will reconsider the matter. If the girl was sent to his place without money,
then even her dead body will not be found.
7. On hearing these talks of the accused, the complainant
believed that her in-laws will not let the complainant enter their home without
taking ten lakhs and if the complainant went there on her own, she will not be
safe. Hence, she lodged the report wherein she prayed that the SHO Daraganj
should be ordered to do the needful after registering the case against the
accused Shyam Mehrotra, Ramji Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra.
Thus, in substance, the complainant related the bickering at her matrimonial
home which made her life miserable in several ways and compelled her to leave
her in- law’s place in order to live with her father where she lodged a police
case as stated hereinbefore.
8. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating
authorities at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad started investigation of the case and
thereafter the police submitted chargesheet against the appellants and other
family members of the complainant’s husband.
9. Hence, the appellants who are sister and brother of the
complainant’s husband filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of
the chargesheet and the entire proceedings pending in the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.IV, Allahabad, inter- alia, on the ground that
FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass the appellants and that
no case was made out against the appellants as well as other family members.
But the principal ground of challenge to the FIR was that the incident although
was alleged to have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation should have
been done there only, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance
with the father of the complainant, got the investigating officer to record the
statements by visiting Ghaziabad which was beyond his territorial jurisdiction
and cannot be construed as legal and proper investigation. It was also alleged
that the father of the complainant got the arrest warrant issued through George
Town Police Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of action having arisen
at Allahabad.
10. This appeal has been preferred by Kumari Geeta Mehrotra
i.e. the sister of the complainant’s husband and Ramji Mehrotra i.e. the elder
brother of the complainant’s husband assailing the order of the High Court and
it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that the
complainant who had already obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, is pursuing
the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily
harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation
had failed.
11. However, the grounds of challenge before this Court to
the order of the High Court, inter alia is that the High Court had failed to
appreciate that the investigation had been done by the authority without
following due process of law which also lacked territorial jurisdiction. The
relevant documents/parcha diary for deciding the territorial jurisdiction had
been overlooked as the FIR has been lodged at Allahabad although the cause of
action of the entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad
(Haryana). It was, therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of
the Allahabad have traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an
abuse of the process of law and the High Court has failed to exercise its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of
this case and allowed the proceedings to go on before the trial court although
it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
12. It was further averred that the High Court had failed to
examine the facts of the FIR to see whether the facts stated in the FIR
constitute any prima facie case making out an offence against the sister-in-law
and brother-in-law of the complainant and whether there was at all any material
to constitute an offence against the appellants and their family members.
Attention of this Court was further invited to the contradictions in the
statement of the complainant and her father which indicate material
contradictions indicating that the complainant and her father have concocted
the story to implicate the appellants as well as all their family members in a
criminal case merely with a mala fide intention to settle her scores and extract
money from the family of her ex-husband Shyamji Mehrotra and his family
members.
13. On a perusal of the complaint and other materials on
record as also analysis of the arguments advanced by the contesting parties in
the light of the settled principles of law reflected in a catena of decisions,
it is apparent that the High Court has not applied its mind on the question as
to whether the case was fit to be quashed against the appellants and has merely
disposed of the petition granting liberty to the appellants to move the trial
court and raise contentions on the ground as to whether it has territorial
jurisdiction to continue with the trial in the light of the averment that no
part of the cause of action had arisen at Allahabad and the entire incident even
as per the FIR had taken place at Faridabad.
14. The High Court further overlooked the fact that during
the pendency of this case, the complainant-respondent No.2 has obtained an
ex-parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High
Court failed to apply its mind whether any case could be held to have been made
out against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried
sister and elder brother of the complainant’s ex-husband. Facts of the FIR even
as it stands indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband
Shyamji Mehrotra and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted,
it surely appears to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against
the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji
Mehrotra appear to be existing for even when the complainant came to her
in-law’s house after her wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture
by stating in general that she had been ordered to do household activities of
cooking meals for the whole family. But there appears to be no specific
allegation against the sister and brother of the complainant’s husband as to
how they could be implicated into the mutual bickering between the complainant
and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra including his parents.
15. Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in
the case of Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at
738 allegations were made in a complaint against the husband, the in-laws,
husband’s brother and sister who were all the petitioners before the High Court
wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge sheet
was filed by the Inspector of Police in the court of Judicial Magistrate III,
Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and
issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. Four of the
accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate at
Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. before the
Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint case on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. The High Court by the impugned order
dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the petitioners
were all subject matters to be heard by the trial court for better appreciation
after conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that it was only
desirable to dismiss the criminal original petition and the same was also
dismissed. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to dispense with
the personal attendance of the appellants.
16. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court
dismissing the petition under Section 482Cr.P.C., the special leave petition
was filed in this Court giving rise to the appeals therein where threefold
contentions were raised viz., (i) that the allegations are frivolous and
without any basis; (ii) even according to the FIR, no incriminating acts were
done within the jurisdiction of Trichy Police Station and the court at Trichy
and, therefore, the learned magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offence and (iii) taking cognizance of the alleged offence at
that stage was barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond the period
of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. Apart from the subsequent
two contentions, it was urged that the allegations under the FIR do not make
out any offence of which cognizance could be taken.
17. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had
been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law
by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in
as many of the husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the
FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take
cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges
were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the
contents of the charge sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A,
406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married
sister of the complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the
family of the complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were
pleased to hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in
law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants
were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
18. In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is
concerned, it is no doubt true that the High Court was correct to the extent
that the question of territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial
court itself. But this ground was just one of the grounds to quash the
proceedings initiated against the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein
it was also alleged that no prima facie case was made out against the
appellants for initiating the proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and
other provisions of the IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise its
jurisdiction in so far as the consideration of the case of the appellants are
concerned, who are only brother and sister of the complainant’s husband and are
not alleged even by the complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High
Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial court at
Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained
as to whether the trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit
to be continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the
court.
19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of
the FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari
Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who
have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the
family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them
overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to
involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel
taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the
wedding.
20. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an
apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V.
Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial
dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped
into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their
Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:
“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent
times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the
young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial
skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial
litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties
lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view
taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such
disputes.
21. In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the
matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed
that there is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing
Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view
to punish the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to
coerce her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the
proceedings are initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband
and his relatives and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her
husband and his relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce,
refusal to exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it
would prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the
ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320Cr.P.C. would not
be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different
matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to
exercise or not to exercise such a power.
22. In the instant matter, when the complainant and her
husband are divorced as the complainant-wife secured an ex-parte decree of
divorce, the same could have weighed with the High Court to consider whether
proceeding initiated prior to the divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite
of absence of specific allegations at least against the brother and sister of
the complainant’s husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not
have amounted to abuse of the process of the court. The High Court, however,
seems not to have examined these aspects carefully and have thus side- tracked
all these considerations merely on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction
could be raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial.
23. In the instant case, the question of territorial
jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along
with the other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined
whether the prosecution case was fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At
this stage, the question also crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded
to the High Court to consider all these aspects. But in matters arising out of
a criminal case, fresh consideration by remanding the same would further result
into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by
this Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that such a
course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was no need to
prolong the controversy. The facts in this matter on this aspect was although
somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint after seven
years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that the
complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the offence under Section
498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants who are
sister and brother of the complainant’s husband and their involvement in the
whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names. Hence,
it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the process of law if
we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider whether there were
still any material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite
of absence of prima facie material constituting the offence alleged against
them.
24. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution
that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are
allegation of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family
named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we
wish to emphasize by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not
disclose specific allegation against accused more so against the co-accused
specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear
abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused
in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific
allegations which would persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence
alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found
to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is
the well settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if
the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of
law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in
matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR
in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal
accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving
the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out
to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of
domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
25. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried
sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for
quashing the proceedings against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out
against them under Sections 498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine
whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they
could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial
jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were
raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial
jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court.
26. The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have
missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still
left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial
when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the
allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant
demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to
consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could
have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made
out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the
FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the
complainant’s husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be
just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for
consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the
unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal
of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not
disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and
Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
27. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to
quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji
Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be
constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a
general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture
of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident
against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry
when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband,
we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as
these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High
Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.
(T.S. Thakur)
……………………………J
(Gyan Sudha Misra)
……………………………J
New Delhi,
October 17, 2012
-----------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment