SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 743

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR & GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.
GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. -Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010)
Decided On : 17-10-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is the well settled principle 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.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 482- Application moved by appellants for quashing order of Magistrate taking cognizance against appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act -Order passed by High Court disposing of said application with an observation that question of territorial jurisdiction could not be properly decided by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts- Appeal- Instantly it was the legal duty of High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides question of territorial jurisdiction- 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 appellants to approach the trial court- Contents of the FIR not disclosed specific allegation against brother and sister of complainants husband except casual reference of their names-Hence held that it would not be just to direct appellants to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by 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 not disclosed ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act-Held just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against appellants -Appeal allowed. (Paras 25 to 27)

       Facts of the Case :

        An Application was moved by appellants herein in the instant case for quashing order of Magistrate taking cognizance against appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act .An Order was passed by High Court disposing of said application with an observation that question of territorial jurisdiction could not be properly decided by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts.

        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A It was the legal duty of High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides question of territorial jurisdiction. 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 appellants to approach the trial court. High Court appeared to have missed that assuming 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. High Court failed to consider all these aspects.

        B. Again contents of the FIR not disclosed specific allegation against brother and sister of complainants husband except casual reference of their names. Hence held that it would not be just to direct appellants to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by 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 not disclosed ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court Held just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against appellants .

       Result : Appeal Allowed

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the key points with appropriate references as specified.


JUDGMENT

Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-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 fam


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top