REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1709 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.7924 of 2008)
Bhushan Kumar Meen ... Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and Ors. ... Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, who had all along been appearing
in person, was represented by counsel, Mr.
Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing
2
of the appeal, which is directed against the
judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.M.
No.13709 of 2007, dismissing the appellant's
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S.
Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2
herein.
3. The appellant's marriage was solemnized with
the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh
rites. After their marriage, the couple went
to Gujarat where the appellant was employed
with Patronet L.N.G. Limited in District
Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband
and wife, though no child was born out of the
said wedlock. Subsequently, differences arose
between the appellant and the respondent No.2
which resulted in a complaint being made by
the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior
3
Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting
that a criminal case be registered against the
appellant under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC.
The said complaint was forwarded to the Women's
Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry
into the allegations made by the respondent
No.2 against the appellant. After such
inquiry, the Women's Cell came to the
conclusion that even in spite of the periodical
differences between the appellant and the
respondent No.2, they continued to maintain
their relationship as husband and wife. From
the report it appears that even after she left
Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she
returned to Gujarat in January 2006, and,
thereafter, they visited Mount Abu, Bombay,
Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar,
and both of them even went to Ambala to attend
the retirement function of her mother-in-law,
but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala
4
instead of going with the appellant to the
Zirakpur. The Women's Cell also found that the
respondent No.2 had great love for her parents
and as a result she wanted to stay with them
more often. Even on the question of dowry, it
was found that the entire complaint had been
exaggerated and that the respondent No.2 was
determined to teach her husband and his family
members a lesson by levelling serious
allegations against them. The ultimate
conclusion arrived at by the Women's Cell was
that nothing had come out from the inquiry to
prove the demand of dowry and issuance of
threat, and that the dispute was of a civil
nature which did not call for any action by the
local police at the said stage.
4. Subsequently, a further inquiry was held by the
Superintendent of Police, Patiala, who despite
taking into consideration the report filed by
5
the Women's Cell Patiala, came to the
conclusion that the respondent No.2 had been
harassed by the appellant and her father-in-law
and mother-in-law for not meeting the demand of
dowry and suggested action to be taken under
Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, on
receipt of the said report, the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patiala, met the
appellant and the respondent No.2 and was of
the view that the matter did not appear to be a
case of demand of dowry and the allegations
needed to be checked again for evidence, though
the ingredients of Section 498-A could be true.
The Superintendent of Police, Patiala, was
directed to re-verify and substantiate the
evidence.
5. After further inquiry, the Superintendent of
Police, once again came to the conclusion that
6
the appellant had harassed the respondent No.2
which merited the registration of a case
against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.
Upon the case being registered, the appellant
filed Criminal Misc. No.13709 of 2007 under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR. The
matter was heard by the learned Single Judge,
who, by his order dated 27.8.2008, dismissed
the application filed by the appellant for
quashing of the FIR and held that in view of
the specific allegations contained therein, no
ground for quashing the same had been made out
and the appellant would be at liberty to set up
the plea in defence at the appropriate stage of
the trial.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned
Single Judge, the appellant filed the Special
Leave Petition out of which the present appeal
arises.
7
7. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Vijay K.
Aggarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that at
every stage the appellant had made sincere
attempts to make the marriage with the
respondent No.2 work, but at every stage such
efforts of the appellant had been resisted. It
was submitted that the appellant had agreed to
live with the respondent No.2 in a house which
was separate from the house in which his
parents lived, since it was one of the
complaints of the respondent No.2 that he was
paying more attention to his parents than to
her. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, all the attempts
made by the appellant to make the marriage work
proved to be futile on account of the attitude
of the respondent No.2, and even the complaint
made against him was a fallout thereof,
8
although, there was no truth whatsoever in any
of the allegations made in the FIR.
8. On behalf of the respondent No.2 an attempt was
made to show that the appellant is a person who
was only interested in harassing the respondent
No.2 for bringing dowry. However, the said
allegations do not bear scrutiny in view of the
report filed by the Women's Cell, Patiala that
the appellant and the respondent No.2 had
visited various places all over the country
together, which, according to the learned
counsel for the appellant, clearly proves that
the appellant and the respondent No.2 continued
to maintain a normal relationship of husband
and wife despite their moments of disagreement.
Coupled with the above, is the observation of
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala,
that after meeting the couple he was of the
view that the matter did not relate to a dowry
9
offence and that the dispute appeared to be of
a civil nature.
9. The complaint made by the respondent No.2 does
not, in our view, make out a case under Section
498-A IPC and appears to have been filed by the
respondent No.2 based on misunderstandings
between the parties prompting the respondent
No.2 to attack the appellant for something
which is likely to have occurred during their
stormy marriage.
10. In our view, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court did not appreciate the nature of the
on and off relationship between the appellant
and the respondent No.2, which caused him to
dismiss the appellant's application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there
were serious allegations in the FIR which have
been registered against the appellant regarding
his alleged cruelty and maltreatment of the
10
respondent No.2 and even misappropriation by
him.
11. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of
the learned Single Judge, since from the entire
records available it is clear that the
complaint made by the respondent No.2 did not
make out a prima facie case to go to trial
under Section 498-A IPC.
12. In such circumstances, we are inclined to
accept Mr. Aggarwal's submissions that no
offence under Section 498-A IPC had been made
out against the appellant and the complaint
was, therefore, liable to be rejected and the
FIR was also liable to be quashed.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order of the High Court is set aside and the
FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the
appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the
basis thereof, are quashed.
11
............................................................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
............................................................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
............................................................J.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
New Delhi,
Dated: 02.09.2011.
