1. Matrimonial dispute — FIR for offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 420, and 120-B, IPC — Petition for quashment of proceedings against distant relatives. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1085
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Payal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022)
With
Subhash Chander Kapila – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023)
Decided On : 26-11-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR Mrs. Manju Bhagat, Adv. Mrs. Archna Midha, Adv. Mr. Aksveer Singh Saggu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Harsh Jaidka, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR Mrs. Manju Bhagat, Adv. Mrs. Archna Midha, Adv. Mr. Aksveer Singh Saggu, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Harsh Jaidka, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Quashing petition – Petition could be filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing charge-sheet even before framing of charges – It would not be in interest of justice to reject application merely on the ground that accused concerned could argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of charges.
(2) Cruelty – In matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and tendency of over implication is also reflected.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406 and 498A [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 316 and 86] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Criminal breach of trust and cruelty – Quashing petition – When ingredients to attract offence punishable under Section 417, IPC are not satisfied there cannot be any question of such allegations/accusations attracting Section 420, IPC – Allegations against accused are general and omnibus in nature – Fact that present complaint which ultimately culminated in impugned order was filed by complainant subsequent to grant of divorce between first accused and complainant’s daughter, is a fact discernible and indisputable – This had occurred in Canada – There is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie that they would constitute alleged offences against accused – In matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases – Accused persons in present case are distant matrimonial relatives of complainant – High Court must have quashed subject FIR in view of final report – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 9, 15, 17, 22 and 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Quashing petition – Petition could be filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing charge-sheet even before framing of charges – It would not be in interest of justice to reject application merely on the ground that accused concerned could argue legal and factual issues at the time of framing of charges – Section 482, Cr.P.C., which virtually saves inherent powers of High Court that said power could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice – In such circumstances if High Court feels that ends of justice requires that an order should be made in application, technicality shall not deter court from passing necessary orders to secure ends of justice. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Captioned appeals are directed against the order dated 11.03.2022 in C.R.M.-M. No.42226 of 2021 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Said petition was jointly filed by the appellant in the former appeal and her husband, second respondent in the latter appeal, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively, seeking quashment of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Findings of Court:
Subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom including charge-sheet qua accused No.5 are quashed and set aside. Criminal Appeal arising out from SLP (Crl.) No.13579 of 2023 filed by complainant is dismissed confirming impugned order qua accused No.6.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed. Criminal Proceedings quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Accused claimed over-implication and lack of specific allegations — Complainant contended that specific allegations existed and filing of chargesheet barred quashment. (Para 6 , 7 , 12 , 18 )
3. Allegations were general and omnibus — Relatives residing in different cities were over-implicated — Filing of chargesheet does not preclude exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. In matrimonial disputes, courts must scrutinize allegations against distant relatives living separately to prevent over-implication and abuse of process under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 20 )
5. FIR and subsequent proceedings, including chargesheet, quashed for both accused. (Para 24 )
6. How should courts treat allegations against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes?
Courts must be cautious of the tendency toward over-implication and exaggerated versions. Allegations against relatives living in different cities should be scrutinized with great care to ensure they are not merely intended to pressure the main accused. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Can a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing be maintained after a chargesheet has been filed?
Yes, a petition for quashing can be filed even after the chargesheet is submitted and before charges are framed to prevent abuse of the process of court or secure the ends of justice. (Para 18 , 23 )
8. What is the legal distinction between cheating under Section 417 and Section 420 of the IPC?
Section 417 punishes cheating simpliciter where no property passes. Section 420 applies when deception leads to the delivery of property or alteration/destruction of valuable security. If ingredients of Section 417 are not met, Section 420 cannot be attracted. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. The captioned appeals are directed against the order dated 11.03.2022 in C.R.M.-M. No.42226 of 2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said petition was jointly filed by the appellant in the former appeal and her husband, the second respondent in the latter appeal, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) as petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively, seeking quashment of FIR No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) at Police Station, District Police Commissionerate, Women, Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. In fact, after the registration of FIR No.0080/2020 at the instance of Subhash Chander Kapila, the second respondent in the former appeal, offences under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC were also added. The appellant in the former appeal is accused No.5 and her husband, the second respondent in the latter appeal, was accused No.6 in the said FIR. The appellant in the latter appeal viz., the second respondent in the former appeal is the complainant. For convenient sake, the parties are therefore, referred to hereafter in this judgment in accordance with their status and rank in the subject FIR and subsequently filed final report, unless otherwise specifically mentioned. In other words, the appellant in the former appeal is described as ‘accused No.5’, her husband who is the second respondent in the latter appeal is referred to as ‘accused No.6’ and the appellant in the latter appeal, who is respondent No.2 in the former appeal is referred to as ‘the complainant’, in this judgment.
2. As per the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2022, the High Court allowed CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 qua accused No.6, the husband of accused No.5 and quashed FIR No.0080 dated 03.12.2020 and all proceedings subsequent thereto qua him and at the same time, dismissed the said petition qua accused No.5, the second petitioner therein. The former appeal is filed by accused No.5 against CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 to the extent it rejected her prayer for quashment of subject FIR and all further proceedings and the latter appeal is filed by the complainant against the quashment of the subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom qua accused No.6.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.5 and 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and also for the complainant.
4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is appropriate to look into the relationship between the parties involved in the matter. The couple involved (now divorced) is the first accused-Amit Sharma and Vandana Sharma, who is the daughter of the complainant. Accused No.6 is the cousin brother of the first accused and as already noted, accused No.5 is his wife.
5. The undisputed and indisputable facts, in succinct, that led to the filing of CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 before the High Court are as under: -
The marriage between the first accused-Amit Sharma and Vandana Sharma was solemnized on 23.02.2019. On 07.03.2019, the first accused-Amit Sharma left for Canada and Vandana Sharma stayed back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar in Punjab with her in-laws. On 02.12.2019, Vandana Sharma also left for Canada. On 22.09.2020, Amit Sharma approached the Family Court, Canada seeking divorce from his wife Vandana Sharma. The lodgement of the subject FIR No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020 by the complainant who is the father of Vandana Sharma, alleging commission of the aforementioned offences under the IPC against all the accused including accused Nos.5 and 6, was later to initiation of the said proceedings. It was in the said circumstances that accused Nos.5 and 6 filed CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 before the High Court raising various grounds, which culminated in the impugned order.
6. The contention of accused No.5 is that she is only the wife of the cousin brother
