Case title:
Kamlesh Kalra vs Shilpika Kalra & Ors.
Date of Order:
April 24, 2020
Bench:
Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Justice Vineet Saran
SUBJECT
- Shilpika Kalra, Manish Kalra, Avnish Kalra, and Suman Kalra were named in Kamlesh Kalra's Special Leave Petition (Crl.) no. 2908 of 2019. The appeals were merged by the court, which determined Shilpika's claims lacked legal substantiation. The court dismissed the allegations after determining that the complaint was a pressure tactic.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Matrimonial conflicts and criminal breaches of trust are addressed in Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 498A criminalises cruelty, including harassment, torture, and deliberate behaviour, with the goal of protecting married women from such crimes. Section 406 deals with criminal breaches of trust including property misappropriation or misuse.
OVERVIEW
- The complainant, Shilpika Kalra, married her husband Manish Kalra in 2007 and lived together in Mumbai. They started living separately since June 10, 2009. Manish filed a divorce petition in 2009, which is still pending. On January 28, 2013, Shilpika filed a complaint in Delhi seeking registration of a First Information Report against Manish, Kamlesh, Avnish, and Suman Kalra, alleging possession of stridhan articles.
- On 29.10.2014, the police registered an FIR against all accused under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Husband Manish Kalra deposited the Stridhan articles on 16.06.2015, but the complainant/wife Shilpika Kalra refused to accept the same. On 25.05.2016, a chargesheet was filed against Manish Kalra, Kamlesh Kalra, and their brother-in-law and sister-in-law, Avnish and Suman Kalra.
- Police documented that complainant Shilpika Kalra filed a letter with an additional list of goods unreturned. This extra collection was provided over seven years after the divorce petition and a year after husband Manish Kalra placed the articles with the Investigation Officer. On 22.02.2018, charges were filed against Manish Kalra and MIL Kamlesh Kalra under Section 406/34 IPC.
- Manish Kalra, Kamlesh Kalra, Avnish Kalra, and Suman Kalra filed a Writ Petition in 2016 to quash the FIR filed by complainant Shilpika Kalra. The High Court dismissed the plea, rendering it infructuous.
- The FIR under Section 406 IPC was quashed for Manish Kalra alone, as the entrustment of Stridhan articles was alleged against her mother-in-law Kamlesh Kalra, not her husband Manish Kalra.
- Kamlesh Kalra filed Special Leave Petition (Crl.) no. 2908 of 2019 against Shilpika Kalra, Manish Kalra, Avnish Kalra, and Suman Kalra. Both appeals were heard together, and learned counsel for the parties was heard.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- According to the complainant’s learned Counsel, the supplementary list provided subsequently was of items presented by the appellant’s relatives and friends, as well as certain items.In the facts of this case, the same is not worthy of acceptance.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent, married to Manish Kalra in 2007, claims her in-laws have not appeared despite being informed. The couple had an arranged marriage, with gifts and dowry provided by the respondent’s family and the widow mother of Late Brig S H Grover. The respondent’s mother-in-law demanded her salary and gifts, and the respondent was insulted for not arranging the marriage at Taj Hotels.
- The respondent moved to Mumbai to join her husband, but deserted her on June 10, 2009, and filed a divorce petition. The respondent’s Stridhan, including personal belongings, is currently with her mother-in-law Kamlesh Kalra, Avnish Kalra, and Suman Kalra.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The SC was satisfied with the High Court who found that the complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC is not interfering with the proceedings. The 2015 FIR was time-barred, filed three years after Manish Kalra’s separation and divorce petition in 2009. The reasons for quashing proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified.
- The divorce case has been ongoing for over a decade, but wife-Shilpika Kalra has not filed a complaint. Stridhan goods were initially offered to her, but she refused.
- The FIR does not allege that the complainant/wife Shilpika Kalra demanded the Stridhan articles from her mother-in-law or husband. The husband has already deposited the articles, and the subsequent list submitted in 2016 appears to be an afterthought.
- The court ruled that Shilpika Kalra’s allegations of non-return of Stridhan articles and charges against Kamlesh Kalra are not legally supported. The complaint appears to be a pressure tactic, an abuse of the Court process, and liable for quashing.
- As a result, the Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2908 of 2019 filed by Kamlesh Kalra was allowed, while the FIR no. 390 of 2014 filed under Sections 498A/406 IPC was quashed; and the Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (Crl.)..... (Diary No.9972 of 2019) filed by Shilpika Kalra was dismissed.
