Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 831

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024 Arising Out of Slp (CRL) No. 4044 of 2018
Decided On : 25-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Jyotsna Punshi, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shroff, AOR Mr. Jay Kansara, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Despande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. . Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Mr. Victor Das, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no prohibition against quashing of criminal proceedings even after charge-sheet has been filed.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 85, 115(2), 352 and 351 read with Section 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Cruelty – Dismissal of quashing petition by High Court – Complainant has chosen not to involve her husband in criminal proceedings, particularly when all allegations relate to demand of dowry – Provocation for Complaint/FIR is essentially property dispute between father and son – Allegations are again vague, lacking in basic details – Rights and claims in suit are the very basis and provocation for filing criminal cases – Complaint/FIR is replete with just one theme that appellants are threatening them that they will deny share in property – Complaint/FIR is intended only to further their interest of civil dispute – Criminal proceedings were instituted with a mala fide intention, only to harass appellants – There is no prohibition against quashing of criminal proceedings even after charge-sheet has been filed – None of ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC are made out – If criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against appellants, same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 9, 9.1, 9.2, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
This criminal appeal is against dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and subsequent charge-sheet against appellants herein. By order impugned herein, High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A of IPC.
Findings of Court:
Identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable. This case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject appellants to the entire criminal law process.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This criminal appeal is against the dismissal of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet against the appellants herein. By order dated 01.05.2018, this Court issued notice in the Special Leave Petition and stayed the criminal proceedings. The short and necessary facts for disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows.

3. Respondent no. 2 is the complainant. She was married to one Niraj Mahendrabhai Patel in 2002, and he is not a party in these proceedings. On 01.03.2013, the complainant filed a complaint, pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 25.03.2013 at P.S. Jalna, Maharashtra under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants, who are her step mother- in-law (appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law (appellant no. 3), and the Munim (appellant no. 4). The chargesheet in this case was filed on 30.07.2013.

4. A precise but accurate description of the allegations in the FIR are that, i) her husband is the son of the appellant no. 3 and his late first wife. Thereafter, the appellant no. 3 married appellant no. 1 and their son is appellant no. 2. She lived with her husband, son and daughter in Mumbai, from where her husband was managing the family business by giving complete accounts to the family, ii) at the time of marriage her father gave certain articles and cash as dowry, and iii) she also held a joint locker at a bank in Anand, Gujarat with appellant no. 1, keys to which were kept by appellant no. 1 alone. iv) At the time of the birth of her daughter, which was eight years before the complaint, appellant nos. 1 and 3 visited her at the hospital and threatened to deprive her of a share in the property and refused to return the gold and silver ornaments that were kept in the locker. v) About 2-4 months after the delivery, when she returned to her matrimonial house in Mumbai, appellant nos. 1 and 3 initially refused to take her and later deprived her of food and physically assaulted her. vi) Even when her son was born, which was four years before the complaint, appellants no. 1 to 3 visited her at Jalna and threatened to deprive her and her husband any share in the property. vii) She has also alleged that appellant no. 2 hindered her daughter’s education by cancelling her school admission. viii) Against appellant no. 4, who is the Munim, she has alleged that he threatened her that the family property only belongs to appellant no. 2 and that the complainant, and her husband will have no share in it. ix) Under these circumstances, being frightened, she left the house of the appellants along with her husband and children and started living in Jalna, her parental home. x) Even at Jalna, the accused persons threatened her and asked her to bring Rs. 50,00,000/- for the future of her son and daughter. There is danger to her life and also to the life of her husband and children and therefore the complaint on 01.03.2013. The FIR was registered on 25.03.2013, and chargesheet came to be filed on 30.07.2013.

5. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 for quashing the FIR dated 25.03.2013 and the chargesheet dated 30.07.2013. By the order impugned herein, the High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty is made out under Section 498A. The High Court also observed that the complainant specifically referred to instances of cruelty and attributed overt acts to each appellant. Rejecting the contention of the appellants that neither the Police Station, nor the Courts will have jurisdiction, the Court held that Jalna would have jurisdiction as per Sections 178 and 179 of the CrPC as some part of the offence was committed there.

6. The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the High Court’s order. While issuing notice on 01.05.2018, this Court also stayed further proceedings.

7. We have heard Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr Sid