Advocates:
ANURADHA & ASSOCIATES

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

1674

OF

2012

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010)

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr.

..Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.

. Respondents

J U D G M

E N T

GYAN

SUDHA

MISRA,

J.

1.

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

Page 2

JUDGMENT

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

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

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

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

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