Important point
Where allegations of harassment and torture against married sister of husband of informant complainant did not amount to harassment with a view to coercing informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for property, proceedings were liable to be quashed against her.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498A and 406 and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act—Petition to quash FIR and proceedings—Petitioner was married sister of informant’s husband living in Delhi with her family—Informant lived in Mumbai in matrimonial house at relevant time and petitioner stayed in that family in Mumbai for some time—Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her were alleged but they did not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to informant—Allegation did not amount to harassment with a view to coerce informant or her relation to meet any unlawful demand for any property—FIR and proceedings were liable to be quashed and High Court ought to have quashed it.
       Held : Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz., Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband who is undisputedly living in Delhi with her family. Assuming that during the relevant time, i.e., between March and October, 1997, when the 6th respondent (informant) lived in Mumbai in her marital home, the said lady stayed with them for some days, there is nothing in the complaint which connects her with an offence under Section 498-A or any other offence of which cognizance was taken. Certain acts of taunting and ill-treatment of informant by her sister-in-law (appellant) were alleged but they do not pertain to dowry demand or entrustment and misappropriation of property belonging to the informant. What was said against her in the F.I.R. is that on some occasions, she directed the complainant to wash W.C. and she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave.” It is further stated in the report that Gowri would make wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family. These allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment with a view to coercing the informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. At the most, the allegations reveal that her sister-in-law Gowri was insulting and making derogatory remarks against her and behaving rudely against her. Even acts of abetment in connection with unlawful demand for property/dowry are not alleged against her. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband’s relations as possible. Neither the F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy. The High Court ought not to have relegated her to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy are hereby quashed and her appeal stands allowed. (Para 6)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 468(2)(L) and 473—Cognizance of offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC—Limitation—Last act of cruelty would be starting point of limitation—Approach the Court has to adopt in considering the question of limitation in regard to matrimonial offences—In the facts of case benefit of Section 473 Cr.P.C. extended. (Paras 8 & 9)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 177—Territorial jurisdiction for offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC—Court at Tiruchirapally took cognizance of offence—Informant-complainant had lived in Mumbai in matrimonial house where acts of cruelty were allegedly committed against her—Offences alleged could not be said to have been committed wholly or partly within local jurisdiction of Magistrate’s Court at Trichy—One instance given in complaint that relations of informant met her in laws at a hotel in Chennai where they were staying and there was again a demand for dowry and threat to torture informant in case she was sent back to Mumbai without money and articles demanded—Alleged act could constitute offence partly at Chennai—Informant was seeking transfer of matrimonial petition filed by husband for dissolution of marriage in Mumbai Court to Family Court at Chennai—In the facts and circumstances, criminal case pending at Tiruchirapally and Matrimonial Court filed by husband at Mumbai, directed to be transferred and to be tried in Court at Chennai. (Paras 10 to 14)

Order

Leave granted.

2. The two appeals filed by five accused (three in one case and two in another) arise out of two identical orders passed by the Madras High Court on 7.8.2003 and 21.8.2003 dismissing the petitions filed by them under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) by which a prayer was made to quash the charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings in C.C.No. 72/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapalli (‘Trichy’ for short), Tamil Nadu State. The wife of the 1st appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5735/2003, filed a complaint on 23.6.1999 with the All Women Police Station, Trichy alleging the commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegations were made in the said complaint against the husband, the in-laws, husband’s brother and sister, who were all the petitioners before the High Court and the appellants herein. After registration of the F.I.R. and investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Trichy on 28.12.2001 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on 13.2.2002. It appears that four of the appellants were arrested and released on bail by the Magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 593/2002 in the Bombay High Court for quashing the F.I.R. or in the alternative to transfer the F.I.R. to Mumbai. The proceedings were stayed by the High Court. On 2.6.2003, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn while giving liberty to approach the High Court of Madras at Chennai for appropriate relief. Thereafter, the appellants filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 72/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Trichy. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition with the following observations:

“But the grounds raised by the Petitioners are all subject matters to be heard by the trial court for better appreciation after conducting full trial and hence this Court is of the view that it is only desirable to dismiss the above Criminal Original Petition and the same is dismissed as such.”

3. However the High Court directed the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the special leave petitions giving rise to these appeals were filed by the accused.

4. In the petition under Section 482, three contentions were raised—

(i) That the allegations are frivolous and without any basis;

(ii) even according to the F.I.R., 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;

(iii) taking cognizance of the alleged offences at this stage is barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2).

5. The last two contentions are stressed before us. As far as the 1st appellant in the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 290/2004 (Gowri Ramaswamy) is concerned, it is contended that the allegations in the F.I.R. do not make out any offence of which cognizance could be taken.

6. Before we proceed to deal with the two contentions relating to limitation and territorial jurisdiction, we would like to consider first the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-Gowri Ramaswamy. Looking at the allegations in the F.I.R. and the contents of charge-sheet, we hold that none of the alleged offences, viz., Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against her. She is the married sister of the informant’s husband w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 405

Important pointWhere allegations of harassment and torture against married sister of husband of informant complainant did not amount to ­harassment with a view to coercing informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for property, proceedings were liable to be quashed against her.

Cases Referred (2)

Important point
Where allegations of harassment and torture against married sister of husband of informant complainant did not amount to harassment with a view to coercing informant or her relation to meet an unlawful demand for property, proceedings were liable to be quashed against her.