Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MONICA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.435-436 OF 2014 Special Leave Petition (Crl) Nos.4125-4126 OF 2008 With WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 101 OF 2013
Decided On : 18-02-2014
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR at the stage of quashing – Not permissible – Facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. (Para 10)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 and section 406 IPC – Appellants were entrusted or had exercised dominion over the property belonging to complainant – Further, appellants had unlawfully retained the same – Complaint also alleges retention of cash and other gifts received by complainant at the time of her marriage – Ingredients of section 406 satisfied. (Para 11)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Maintenance – Order attaining finality – Execution – Provided for in subsection (3) of section 125 – Resort has to be made to that provision – Instead, complainant invoking Article 32 on ground that the husband lives abroad – Enough provisions and guidelines/instructions available effective service of notice/summons to persons living abroad – Court declining top invoke jurisdiction under Article 32. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 IPC against her parents-in-law and her husband (respondent no.2).
The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the
appellants and the second respondent.
Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing the complaint. This petition was dismissed and this order was challenged before the Supreme Court by 2 SLPs which were disposed of holding that while no offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out against either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, as alleged, was prima facie made out against the appellant No. 2 alone.
Review Petitions were also dismissed. Thereafter, the National Commission for Women as well as respondent herself filed Curative Petitions (Crl.) which were allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Complaint No. 287/1A (Monica Vs. Vikas Sharma and Others) presently pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi cannot be interdicted but has to be finally concluded by the learned Trial Court.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that it is not permissible to appraise averments in a complaint/FIR at the stage of quashing; they must be accepted as stated for trial. (!) (!) - The court clarifies that the complainant’s allegations under 498A and 406 IPC can prima facie sustain a case and cannot be interdicted at the threshold; trial should be expeditiously completed. (!) (!) - The decision discusses the maintainability and proper channels for enforcement of maintenance orders under Section 125 IPC, and that Article 32 jurisdiction is not appropriate where effective statutory remedies exist (execution under Section 125 and service abroad). (!) (!) (!) - The court notes that the scope of Section 125(3) allows execution of maintenance orders and directs family court to proceed or transfer to criminal court if needed for early conclusion. (!) (!) - The case references previous Curative Petitions and reiterates that observations in curative petitions are not binding on the merits of appeals when heard afresh. (!) (!) - The Court directs expeditious trial of Complaint No. 287/1A and clarifies that the writ petition under Article 32 is disposed of with directions to proceed in the civil/criminal courts as appropriate. (!) (!) - The judgment confirms that "cruelty" under 498A includes mental cruelty as per Explanation (a) to Sec. 498A IPC. (!) - The appellate court clarifies that quashing cannot be based on a summary assessment of complaint contents; facts must be proven during trial. (!)
JUDGMENT :
RANJAN GOGOI, J. –
1. As ordered earlier, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Order.SLP (Crl.) No. 4125-4126/20082.
2. Leave granted.
3. The essential facts may be noticed at the outset. The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a complaint under Sections498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Penal Code") against the appellants and one Vikas Sharma (respondent No.2). The appellants are the father and mother-in-law of the respondent-Monica whereas the subsequently impleaded respondent No.2 is her husband. On 21.3.2005 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi took cognizance of the offences alleged by the respondent in the complaint petition which was numbered as 287/1A and issued summons to the appellants and the second respondent herein.
Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for quashing the complaint. By judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants. Against the said order the appellants moved this Court by means of two special leave petitions. By order dated 27.07.2009 leave was granted and the appeals registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009 were disposed of by this Court holding that while no offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out against either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, as alleged, was prima facie made out against the appellant No. 2 alone.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 27.07.2009 of this Court, the respondent filed Review Petition Nos. 384-385 of 2009 which were dismissed by this Court by order dated 01.09.2009. Thereafter, the National Commission for Women as well as respondent herself filed Curative Petition (Crl.) Nos. 24-25 of 2010 and Curative Petition (Crl.) No. D 10575of 2010 respectively which were allowed by this Court by order dated14.03.2013. It is pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.03.2013 passed in the Curative Petitions that the present appeals were re-heard by us.
5. In the order dated 14.03.2013 passed in the Curative Petitions it has been observed that, "As far as the question regarding making out of a case under Section 498A I.P.C. is concerned, it has to be kept in mind that the appeals were against the initial order summoning the accused to stand trial. Accordingly, it was too early a stage, in our view, to take a stand as to whether any of the allegations had been established or not."
6. However, as in the very same order dated 14.03.2013 it was made clear that "the observations made in this order is for the purposes of the hearing of the curative petitions and should not, in any way, prejudice the outcome of the appeals, when they are heard afresh", we have proceeded tore-hear the appeals on its own merit. We would also like to observe, at this stage, that in the present appeals the only question that would require to be decided is whether on the allegations made in the complaint petition filed by the respondent a prima facie case of commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the Penal Code is made out against the appellants.
We will not be concerned with such allegations made against the second respondent who, though named as accused No. 1 in the complaint, had chosen not to question the same. In fact, the said accused has been brought on the record of the present proceedings as respondent No. 2 on the basis of an application filed by the respondent Monica claiming that the addition of her husband as a respondent is necessary for the purposes of facilitating a reconciliation which, however, did not materialise though was attempted.
7. We have read and considered the statements made by the complainant(respondent herein) in the complaint petition, particularly those in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 24 and 29 thereof. The said para
IMPORTANT POINTSAppreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR at the stage of quashing is not permissible.
Filing an FIR under Section 498-A IPC can be quashed if the allegations are vague and do not demonstrate acts of cruelty as defined by law, particularly when linked to ongoing matrimonial disputes.
The Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution, and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically....
The main legal point established is that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code encompasses both mental and physical well-being of the wife, and actions leading to emot....
The court affirmed that jurisdiction for criminal proceedings can extend beyond the locality of the offense if the offense is continuing or has consequences in another jurisdiction.
The judgment established the requirement for conclusive evidence of cruelty under section 498A of IPC and the distinction between cruelty and entitlement to maintenance under section 125 of the Code.
The court emphasized that the allegations, if proved, constitute an offence and should be decided in a trial, and that the court cannot appreciate evidence while considering a petition for quashing c....
Demand of dowry – Conviction set aside – Suit restitution of conjugal rights decreed, but the wife/complainant has not complied that decree
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
