Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 813

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Abhishek – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015
Decided On : 31-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivang Rawat, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ambastha, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nidhi, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court would continue to have power to entertain and act upon petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR even when charge-sheet is filed by police during pendency of such petition.
(2) Dowry offences – Court must guard against false implication of in-laws.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent jurisdiction – Exercise of – High Court would continue to have power to entertain and act upon petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR even when charge-sheet is filed by police during pendency of such petition – Where accused seeks quashing of FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court, it is wholly impermissible for High Court to enter into factual arena to adjudge correctness of allegations in complaint – Power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dowry offences – Quashing petition – Allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry – Complainant filed complaint alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings – Allegations against appellants, such as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a case against them – They are so farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against them – FIR quashed. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are facing prosecution for offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All three appellants secured anticipatory bail. appellants then moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed both the quash petitions. Aggrieved thereby, appellants are before this Court by way of these appeals by special leave.
Findings of Court:
Permitting the criminal process to go on against appellants in such a situation would result in clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings.
Result : Appeals allowed. FIR quashed.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. Bhawna, the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015, married Nimish Gour in the year 2007. He, however, secured a decree of divorce on 05.09.2019 dissolving their marriage. Bhawna preferred First Appeal No. 1876 of 2019 against the said divorce decree and the same is stated to be pending consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants in the present appeals were Bhawna’s in-laws. Kusum Lata was her mother-in-law while Abhishek and Sourabh were her brothers-in-law.

2. Bhawna married Nimish on 02.07.2007. Their marriage was an arranged one and was performed at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Bhawna was a teacher by profession. Nimish was working in the film industry at Mumbai and was engaged in film editing. After their marriage, the couple left for Mumbai on 08.07.2007. Bhawna is stated to have visited her in-laws in Madhya Pradesh on 3 or 4 occasions only, including the Deepavali festival in 2008. Admittedly, Bhawna parted ways with her matrimonial home at Mumbai on 25.02.2009, be it on her own volition or otherwise, and started residing with her parents at Narsinghpur. At that time, Kusum Lata had submitted representation dated 24.02.2009 to Police Station Heera Nagar at Indore, apprehending that Bhawna may make allegations against them about harassing her for dowry.

3. Prior to the filing of the divorce petition by Nimish on 08.05.2013, Bhawna made a written complaint on 05.02.2013 to Police Station Kotwali, District Narsinghpur, levelling several allegations against her husband and her in-laws. The same was sent to the jurisdictional police station at Heera Nagar, Indore. In consequence, FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 09.02.2013 was registered on the file of P.S. Heera Nagar, Indore, against all four of them under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. All three appellants secured anticipatory bail on 06.03.2013 in relation to FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, vide Bail Application No. 634 of 2013.

4. The appellants then moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Kusum Lata and Sourabh filed M.Cr.C. No. 6585 of 2013 while M.Cr.C. No. 2647 of 2014 was filed by Abhishek, praying for quashing of FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 09.02.2013 insofar as they were concerned. During the pendency of these cases, the police completed their investigation and filed a charge sheet against all the four accused. The same was taken on file in Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. Thereupon, Kusum Lata and Sourabh filed an application on 13.08.2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 6585 of 2013 laying a challenge to the charge sheet and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014. However, by separate orders dated 03.03.2015, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed both the quash petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court by way of these appeals by special leave.

5. By common order dated 30.10.2015 passed in both the appeals, this Court stayed further proceedings qua the appellants.

6. In her written complaint dated 05.02.2013 made to P.S. Kotwali, District Narsinghpur, Bhawna spoke of her marriage being solemnized with Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and stated that her parents had given Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash, one gold necklace, ear-set, anklets of silver, Bichua (toe-rings), costly sarees and clothes. She further stated that her relatives had separately given her a gold chain, Nath, Bindi etc., several jewellery items and other gifts. She alleged that her mother-in-law and brother-in-law, Abhishek, got a list prepared of all the gifts and took the same, saying: ‘Bhabi, we will keep them in a Bank Locker as you do not have a house in Mumbai and you will not be able to keep them’. She stated that she went to Mumbai along with her husband on 08.07.2007. She made several allegations about how she was ill-treated by her husband at Mumbai. Those allegati