LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, October 18, 2012

whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.


                                                                  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   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 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
    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  stayed  in  the  house.   Shyamji
    gradually took away all the money which the complainant  had  with  her
    and then told her  that  her  father  had  not  given  dowry  properly,
    therefore, she should get Rupees five lakhs from her father in order to
    enable him to start business, because  he  was  not  getting  any  job.
    When the complainant clearly declined and stated that she will not  ask
    her parents for money, Shyamji, on instigation of other  accused-family
    members, started beating her occasionally.  To escape every day torture
    and financial status of the family, the complainant took up a job in  a
    Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where the complainant had  to  do
    night shifts due to which she used to come back home at around  3  a.m.
    in the morning.  Just on her return from  work,  the  household  people
    started playing bhajan cassettes after which she had to  getup  at  7’o
    clock in the morning to prepare and serve food to all  the  members  in
    the family.  Often on falling asleep in  the  morning,  Shyamji,  Kamla
    Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the complainant every day mentally and
    physically.   Ramji Mehrotra often  provoked  the  other  three  family
    members to torture and often used to make the complainant feel  sad  by
    making inappropriate statements about the complainant and her  parents.
    Her husband Shyamji also took away the salary from the complainant.
    5.           After persistent efforts, Shyamji finally  got  a  job  in
    Chennai and he went to Chennai for the job in May, 2003.   But,  it  is
    alleged that there was no change in his behaviour even after  going  to
    Chennai.  The complainant often called him on phone to talk to him  but
    he always did irrelevant conversation.  He never  spoke  properly  with
    the complainant whenever he visited home and often used to hurl  filthy
    abuses.  The complainant states that she often wept and  tolerated  the
    tortures of the accused persons for a long time but did not complain to
    her family members, as that would have made them feel  sad.   At  last,
    when the complainant realized that even her life was in danger, she was
    compelled to tell everything to her father on phone who was very  upset
    on hearing her woes.  On 15.7.2003 complainant heard some  conversation
    of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law from which it  appeared  to  her
    that they want to kill the complainant in the  night  only.   Thereupon
    the complainant apprised her father of the situation on phone to  which
    her father replied that he will call back  her  father-in-law  and  she
    should go with him immediately and he will come in  the  morning.   The
    father-in-law Satish Dhawan and his  wife  who  were  living  in  NOIDA
    thereafter came in the night and somehow took the complainant to  their
    home who also came to know of everything.  The complainant’s father and
    brother later went to her matrimonial home on 16.7.2003.  On seeing her
    father and brother, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra started  speaking
    loudly and started saying that Shyamji would be coming by  the  evening
    and so he should come in the evening for talking to them.   Her  father
    and brother then went away from there.   That  very  day,  her  husband
    Shyamji and brother-in-law Ramji also reached home.  On reaching there,
    Shyamji abused her on phone and told her to send her father.
    6.           When father and brother of the complainant  went  home  in
    the evening, they were also insulted by all the four and  video  camera
    and tape were played and in the end they were  told  that  they  should
    leave from here.  Insulted, they came back from  there  and  then  came
    back to Allahabad with the complainant.  For many days the  complainant
    and her family members hoped that the situation would  improve  if  the
    matter was resolved.  Many times other people tried to persuade the  in
    – laws but to no avail.  Her brother went to their house to talk to her
    in – laws but it came to his knowledge that the in – laws  had  changed
    their house.  After much effort, they came to know that the  father-in-
    law and mother-in-law started living at B-39, Brahma cooperative  group
    housing  society,  block  7,  sector-7,  Dwarka,  Delhi.   On  19.09.04
    evening, her  father  talked  to  Kamla  Mehrotra  and  Geeta  Mehrotra
    regarding the complainant using bad words and it was said that  if  her
    daughter came there she will be kicked out.  After  some  time  Shyamji
    rang up at complainant’s home but on hearing the  complainant’s  voice,
    he told her abusively that now she should not  come  his  way  and  she
    should tell her father not to phone him in  future.   At  approximately
    10:30 pm in the night Ramji’s phone came to the complainant’s home.  He
    used bad words while talking to her father and in the end said that  he
    had got papers prepared in his defence and he may do whatever he  could
    but if he could afford to give Rs.10 lakhs then it should  be  conveyed
    after which he will reconsider the matter.  If the girl was sent to his
    place without money, then even her dead body will not be found.
    7.           On hearing these talks of  the  accused,  the  complainant
    believed that her in-laws will not let the complainant enter their home
    without taking ten lakhs and if the complainant went there on her  own,
    she will not be safe.  Hence, she lodged the report wherein she  prayed
    that the SHO Daraganj  should  be  ordered  to  do  the  needful  after
    registering  the  case  against  the  accused  Shyam  Mehrotra,   Ramji
    Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra.   Thus, in substance,  the
    complainant related the bickering at her matrimonial  home  which  made
    her life miserable in several ways and compelled her to leave  her  in-
    law’s place in order to live with her father where she lodged a  police
    case as stated hereinbefore.
    8.            On  the  basis  of  the  complaint,   the   investigating
    authorities at P.S. Daraganj, Allahabad started  investigation  of  the
    case and  thereafter  the  police  submitted  chargesheet  against  the
    appellants and other family members of the complainant’s husband.
    9.           Hence, the appellants who are sister and  brother  of  the
    complainant’s husband filed petition  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  for
    quashing  of the chargesheet and the entire proceedings pending in  the
    court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court  No.IV,  Allahabad,  inter-
    alia,  on the ground that FIR has been lodged with mala fide intentions
    to harass the appellants and that  no case was  made  out  against  the
    appellants as well as other family members.  But the  principal  ground
    of challenge to the  FIR was that the incident although was alleged  to
    have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation  should  have  been
    done there only, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance
     with the father  of the complainant, got the   investigating   officer
    to record the statements by visiting  Ghaziabad which  was  beyond  his
    territorial jurisdiction   and cannot be construed  as legal and proper
    investigation.   It  was   also  alleged   that  the  father   of   the
    complainant got the  arrest warrant issued through  George Town  Police
    Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of  action  having arisen  at
    Allahabad.
    10.          This appeal has been preferred by  Kumari  Geeta  Mehrotra
    i.e. the sister of the complainant’s husband  and Ramji  Mehrotra  i.e.
    the elder brother of the complainant’s husband assailing the order   of
    the High Court and it was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court   ought
    to have appreciated that the complainant who had already   obtained  an
    ex-parte decree of divorce,  is pursuing  the present case through  her
    father with the sole purpose to  unnecessarily  harass  the  appellants
    to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation had failed.
    11.          However, the grounds of challenge before  this   Court  to
    the order of the High Court, inter alia is that  the  High  Court   had
    failed to appreciate that  the  investigation  had  been  done  by  the
    authority without following  due  process  of  law  which  also  lacked
    territorial jurisdiction.  The  relevant  documents/parcha  diary   for
    deciding the territorial jurisdiction  had been overlooked as  the  FIR
    has been lodged at Allahabad although  the  cause  of  action   of  the
    entire incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad  (Haryana).
    It was, therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of  the
    Allahabad have  traversed  beyond  the  territorial   limits  which  is
    clearly an abuse of the process of law and the High Court has failed to
    exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and
    circumstances of this case and allowed the proceedings to  go on before
    the trial court although it  had  no  jurisdiction  to  adjudicate  the
    same.
    12.          It was further  averred  that the High Court   had  failed
    to examine the  facts of the FIR to see whether the facts stated in the
    FIR constitute any prima facie case  making out an offence  against the
    sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant and  whether  there
    was  at  all  any  material  to  constitute   an  offence  against  the
    appellants and their family  members.   Attention  of  this  Court  was
    further  invited  to  the  contradictions  in  the  statement   of  the
    complainant and  her  father  which  indicate  material  contradictions
    indicating that the complainant and her father have concocted the story
    to implicate the appellants as well as all their family  members  in  a
    criminal case merely with a mala fide intention to  settle  her  scores
    and extract money from  the family  of her ex-husband Shyamji  Mehrotra
    and his family members.
    13.          On a perusal of  the  complaint  and  other  materials  on
    record as also analysis of the arguments  advanced  by  the  contesting
    parties in the light of the settled principles of law  reflected  in  a
    catena of decisions, it is  apparent  that  the  High  Court   has  not
    applied its mind on the question  as to whether the case was fit to  be
    quashed against the appellants and  has merely disposed of the petition
    granting liberty to the appellants  to move  the trial court  and raise
    contentions  on  the  ground   as  to  whether   it   has   territorial
    jurisdiction to continue with the trial in the light  of  the  averment
    that no part of the cause of action had arisen  at  Allahabad  and  the
    entire incident even as per the FIR  had taken place at Faridabad.
    14.          The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the
    pendency of this  case, the complainant-respondent  No.2  has  obtained
    an ex-parte decree of divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra  and
    the High Court  failed to apply its mind whether  any  case   could  be
    held to  have been made out against  Kumari Geeta  Mehrotra  and  Ramji
    Mehrotra, who are  the  unmarried  sister  and  elder  brother  of  the
    complainant’s ex-husband.   Facts of the FIR even as it stands indicate
    that although a prima facie case against the husband  Shyamji  Mehrotra
    and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely
    appears  to be a case where no ingredients making out  a  case  against
    the unmarried sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra  and  his  brother
    Ramji Mehrotra  appear to be existing for  even  when  the  complainant
    came to her in-law’s house after her wedding, she has alleged  physical
    and mental  torture by stating in general that she had been  ordered to
    do household activities of cooking meals for  the  whole  family.   But
    there appears to be no  specific  allegation  against  the  sister  and
    brother of the complainant’s husband as to how they could be implicated
    into the mutual bickering  between  the  complainant  and  her  husband
    Shyamji Mehrotra including his parents.
    15.          Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in  the
    case  of  Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu  reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.)
    735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint  against  the  husband,
    the in-laws, husband’s brother and sister who were all the  petitioners
    before the High Court wherein after registration  of   the  F.I.R.  and
    investigation, the charge sheet  was filed by the Inspector  of  Police
    in the court  of  Judicial  Magistrate  III,  Trichy.   Thereupon,  the
    learned magistrate  took cognizance  of the offence and issued warrants
    against the appellants on 13.2.2002.  Four  of  the  accused-appellants
    were arrested and released on bail by the magistrate  at  Mumbai.   The
    appellants had filed petition  under Section 482,  Cr.P.C.  before  the
    Madras High Court   for quashing the proceedings in complaint  case  on
    the  file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy.  The High  Court   by
    the impugned order dismissed the petition observing  that  the  grounds
    raised by the petitioners  were all  subject matters to  be  heard   by
    the trial court for better appreciation after conducting  full trial as
    the High Court was of the view  that it was only desirable  to  dismiss
    the criminal  original  petition  and  the  same  was  also  dismissed.
    However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate  to  dispense  with
    the personal attendance   of the appellants.
    16.           Aggrieved  by  the   order  of  the  Madras  High   Court
    dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,  the  special  leave
    petition was filed in this Court  giving rise to  the  appeals  therein
    where threefold contentions were raised viz., (i) that the  allegations
    are frivolous  and without any basis; (ii)  even according to the  FIR,
    no incriminating  acts were done within  the jurisdiction  of    Trichy
    Police Station and the court at Trichy   and,  therefore,  the  learned
    magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction  to take cognizance  of  the
    offence and (iii)  taking cognizance of the  alleged  offence  at  that
    stage was barred under Section 468(1) Cr.P.C.  as  it  was  beyond  the
    period of   limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)  Cr.P.C.   Apart
    from the subsequent  two contentions, it was urged that the allegations
    under the FIR  do not make out  any offence  of which cognizance  could
    be taken.
    17.          Their Lordships of the Supreme Court  in this  matter  had
    been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the  sister
    in law by the complainant  appeared  to  suggest  the  anxiety  of  the
    informant to rope in as many  of the husband’s relatives  as  possible.
    It was held that  neither the FIR nor the charge  sheet  furnished  the
    legal basis  for the magistrate to  take  cognizance  of  the  offences
    alleged against the appellants.   The learned  Judges were  pleased  to
    hold that  looking to the allegations in the FIR and  the  contents  of
    the charge sheet,  none of the  alleged offences under Section  498  A,
    406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were  made  against  the
    married sister of the complainant’s husband who  was  undisputedly  not
    living with the family of the complainant’s husband.   Their  Lordships
    of the Supreme Court  were pleased to hold that the High  Court   ought
    not to have  relegated  the sister in law   to  the  ordeal  of  trial.
    Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants  were  quashed  and
    the appeal was allowed.
    18.          In so far as  the  plea  of  territorial  jurisdiction  is
    concerned, it is no doubt true  that the High Court  was correct to the
    extent that  the  question  of  territorial  jurisdiction    could   be
    decided by the trial  court itself.   But this ground was just  one  of
    the grounds  to quash the proceedings initiated against the  appellants
    under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it was also  alleged  that  no  prima
    facie  case was made out against  the  appellants  for  initiating  the
    proceedings  under the Dowry Prohibition Act and  other  provisions  of
    the IPC.  The  High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so
    far as the consideration of the case of the appellants  are  concerned,
    who are only brother and sister of the complainant’s  husband  and  are
    not alleged even  by the complainant to have demanded dowry  from  her.
    The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that  even  if  the
    trial court at Allahabad had the jurisdiction to hold  the  trial,  the
    question  still remained as  to whether the trial against  the  brother
    and sister of the husband  was fit to be  continued  and  whether  that
    would amount to abuse of the process of  the court.
    19.          Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the
    FIR is perused, it is apparent that there are  no  allegations  against
    Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra  except  casual  reference  of
    their names who have been included in the FIR but mere casual reference
    of the names of the family members in  a  matrimonial  dispute  without
    allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking
    cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne  out  of  experience
    that there is a tendency to involve the entire family  members  of  the
    household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute
    specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
    20.          It would  be  relevant at this stage to take  note of   an
    apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of  G.V.  Rao  vs.
    L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein  also   in  a
    matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that  the  High  Court  should
    have quashed the complaint   arising  out  of   a  matrimonial  dispute
    wherein all  family  members  had  been  roped  into  the   matrimonial
    litigation which was quashed and set aside.  Their  Lordships  observed
    therein with  which we entirely agree that:


           “there has been an outburst of  matrimonial  dispute  in  recent
           times.  Marriage is a sacred  ceremony, main purpose of which is
            to  enable  the young couple to  settle down in life  and  live
           peacefully.   But  little     matrimonial   skirmishes  suddenly
           erupt which  often   assume  serious  proportions  resulting  in
           heinous  crimes  in which elders of the family are also involved
           with the result  that  those  who  could  have   counselled  and
           brought about rapprochement  are  rendered   helpless  on  their
           being  arrayed as accused  in the criminal case.  There are many
           reasons which need not be  mentioned here  for  not  encouraging
           matrimonial litigation so that   the  parties  may  ponder  over
           their defaults  and terminate  the disputes amicably  by  mutual
           agreement  instead of fighting  it out in a court of  law  where
           it takes years and years to  conclude and in  that  process  the
           parties lose  their   “young” days  in chasing  their  cases  in
           different  courts.”


    The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the  courts  would
    not encourage such disputes.
    21.          In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386   in  the
    matter of B.S. Joshi & Ors.  vs.  State  of  Haryana  &  Anr.   it  was
    observed that there is no doubt that the object of introducing  Chapter
    XXA containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code   was  to  prevent
    the torture to a woman by her  husband or by  relatives of her husband.
    Section 498A was added  with a  view to  punish the  husband   and  his
    relatives who harass or torture  the wife  to coerce her  relatives  to
    satisfy   unlawful demands  of  dowry.   But  if  the  proceedings  are
    initiated by the wife  under Section 498A against  the husband and  his
    relatives and  subsequently  she has  settled  her  disputes  with  her
    husband  and his relatives and the wife and husband  agreed for  mutual
    divorce, refusal    to exercise inherent   powers  by  the  High  Court
    would not  be proper as it would prevent woman from  settling  earlier.
    Thus for the purpose of securing  the ends of justice  quashing of  FIR
     becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not  be a   bar   to  the
    exercise of power of quashing.   It  would  however    be  a  different
    matter  depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether
     to exercise or not  to exercise such a power.
    22.          In the instant  matter,  when  the  complainant   and  her
    husband  are divorced  as  the  complainant-wife  secured  an  ex-parte
    decree of divorce, the same could have weighed  with the High Court  to
    consider whether proceeding initiated prior  to the divorce decree  was
    fit to be  pursued in spite of  absence  of  specific   allegations  at
    least against the  brother and sister  of  the  complainant’s   husband
    and whether continuing   with this  proceeding could not have  amounted
    to abuse of the process of the court.  The High Court, however,   seems
    not to have  examined these  aspects  carefully  and  have  thus  side-
    tracked all  these  considerations   merely  on  the  ground  that  the
    territorial  jurisdiction  could be raised only  before the  magistrate
    conducting the trial.
    23.           In  the  instant  case,  the  question   of   territorial
    jurisdiction  was  just  one   of  the  grounds  for    quashing    the
    proceedings along with the other grounds   and,  therefore,   the  High
    Court should have examined  whether the  prosecution case was fit to be
     quashed on other grounds or not.  At this stage,  the  question   also
    crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court  to
    consider  all these aspects.  But in matters arising out of a  criminal
    case, fresh consideration by remanding the same  would  further  result
    into a protracted and vexatious proceeding which  is   unwarranted   as
    was held by this Court  in the case of  Ramesh vs. State of Tamil  Nadu
    (supra)  that such  a  course  of  remand  would  be  unnecessary   and
    inexpedient as there was no need  to  prolong  the  controversy.    The
    facts in this matter on this aspect  was  although  somewhat  different
    since the complainant had lodged the complaint  after seven  years   of
    delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position remains that  the
    complaint as it  stands   lacks ingredients  constituting  the  offence
    under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition  Act  against  the
    appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband  and
    their involvement  in the whole incident  appears  only  by  way  of  a
    casual inclusion of their names.  Hence, it cannot be  overlooked  that
    it would be total abuse of the process of law if  we  were  to   remand
    the matter to the High Court to  consider whether there were  still any
    material to hold that the trial should proceed against them in spite of
    absence of  prima  facie  material  constituting  the  offence  alleged
    against them.
    24.          However, we deem it appropriate to add by way  of  caution
    that we may not be misunderstood  so as to infer that even if there are
    allegation of overt act indicating the complicity  of  the  members  of
    the family named in the FIR  in  a  given  case,  cognizance  would  be
    unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is  that,  if
    the FIR as it stands does  not  disclose  specific  allegation  against
    accused more so against the co-accused specially in  a  matter  arising
    out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal  and
    judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the  FIR  to
    undergo  the  trial  unless  of  course  the  FIR  discloses   specific
    allegations which would  persuade the court  to take cognisance of  the
    offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima
    facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of  the
    complainant-wife.  It is the well settled principle laid down in  cases
    too numerous  to  mention,  that  if  the  FIR  did  not  disclose  the
    commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing  the
    proceedings   preventing   the   abuse   of   the   process   of   law.
    Simultaneously, the  courts are expected to adopt a  cautious  approach
    in matters of  quashing  specially  in  cases  of  matrimonial  dispute
    whether the FIR in fact discloses commission  of  an   offence  by  the
    relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie  discloses  a
    case of over-implication  by  involving   the  entire   family  of  the
    accused at the instance of  the complainant, who is out to  settle  her
    scores arising out of the teething  problem  or  skirmish  of  domestic
    bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
    25.          In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister
    of the principal accused  Shyamji Mehrotra approached  the  High  Court
    for quashing the proceedings against them, inter-alia,   on the  ground
    of lack of territorial jurisdiction   as also on the  ground  that   no
    case  was  made  out  against  them  under  Sections  498A,/323/504/506
    including Sections 3/4 of the  Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the  legal
    duty of the High Court  to examine   whether  there  were  prima  facie
    material against the appellants so  that  they  could  be  directed  to
    undergo the trial, besides the question  of  territorial  jurisdiction.
    The High Court seems to have overlooked  all the pleas that were raised
    and rejected  the  petition  on  the  solitary  ground  of  territorial
    jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants  to  approach  the  trial
    court.
    26.          The High Court in our considered opinion  appear  to  have
    missed that assuming the trial court  had territorial jurisdiction,  it
    was still left to be decided whether it was a  fit  case  to  send  the
    appellants  for trial when the FIR failed to make  out  a  prima  facie
    case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting  physical  and
    mental   torture   to  the  complainant  demanding   dowry   from   the
    complainant.  Since the High Court  has failed to consider   all  these
    aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted
    the matter to  the High Court to consider whether a case was  made  out
    against the appellants to proceed against them.  But as the contents of
    the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the  brother  and
    sister of the complainant’s  husband except casual reference  of  their
    names, it would not be just to direct them  to  go  through  protracted
    procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all  over  again
    by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and
    his elder brother to suffer the ordeal   of  a  criminal  case  pending
    against them specially when the FIR does not  disclose  ingredients  of
    offence under  Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4  of  the
    Dowry Prohibition Act.
    27.          We, therefore, deem it just  and  legally  appropriate  to
    quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants  Geeta  Mehrotra
    and Ramji  Mehrotra   as the FIR does not disclose any  material  which
    could be held to  be  constituting   any  offence   against  these  two
    appellants.  Merely by making  a general allegation that they were also
    involved in physical and mental torture of  the  complainant-respondent
    No.2 without  mentioning even a single  incident against them  as  also
    the  fact  as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when  they
    are only  related  as brother and sister of the complainant’s  husband,
    we are pleased to quash and set aside  the criminal proceedings   in so
    far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed
    by the High Court shall stand overruled.   The  appeal  accordingly  is
    allowed.


                                                                ……………………………J
                                                               (T.S. Thakur)




                                                                ……………………………J
                                                          (Gyan Sudha Misra)
    New Delhi,
    October 17, 2012
-----------------------
25