Page 1
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
Page 2
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
2
Page 3
her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-inlaw
and sister-in-law. This appeal has been preferred
by the sister-in-law, who is appellant No.1 and brotherin-
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
3
Page 4
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
4
Page 5
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
Page 6
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-inlaw
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
6
Page 7
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
7
Page 8
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-inlaw
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
8
Page 9
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
9
Page 10
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
1
Page 11
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
1
Page 12
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-inlaw
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
1
Page 13
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.
1
Page 14
14. The High Court further overlooked the fact
that during the pendency of this case, the complainantrespondent
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
1
Page 15
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
1
Page 16
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 482
Cr.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
1
Page 17
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
1
Page 18
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
1
Page 19
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
1
Page 20
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
2
Page 21
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
2
Page 22
settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the
ends of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
Section 320 Cr.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
2
Page 23
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
2
Page 24
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
2
Page 25
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
2
Page 26
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
2
Page 27
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.
2
Page 28
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.
……………………………J
(T.S. Thakur)
……………………………J
(Gyan Sudha Misra)
New Delhi,
October 17, 2012
2
