SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2786 OF 2019)
Mirza Iqbal @ Golu & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Application No.44475 of
2018.
3. The aforesaid application was filed before the
High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
the Chargesheet No.01 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 and
order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance
of the case vide order dated 22.10.2018 for the
1
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. Act) in Case Crime
No.0136 of 2018 registered on the file of PS-Kotwali,
District Gorakhpur.
4. The 2nd respondent – complainant Shri Nisar Ullah
father of the deceased, Rushda Nisar has lodged a
complaint on 25.07.2018 at 09:31 p.m. at PS-Kotwali,
District Gorakhpur to the effect that his younger
daughter namely Rushda Nisar was married to Mirza
Ismail Beg alias Amir s/o Zaki Ullah r/o MohallaMuftipur of Gorakhpur District on 25.12.2015. After
the solemnization of marriage, the accused persons
Mirza Ismail Beg alias Amir (husband), brother-in-law
(devar) Mirza Iqbal alias Golu (1st Appellant herein),
sister-in-law (nanad) Hifza alias Chinki and motherin-law (saas) Sammi (2nd Appellant) continuously used
to demand a four-wheeler vehicle and Rs.10,00,000/-
in cash as dowry. It is alleged that as the said
demands were not met, they used to beat his daughter
and threatened to kill her. It is, further, alleged
that ten days prior to the date of incident, all the
accused persons with a common intention had severely
2
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
beaten up his daughter and threatened to kill, if the
demands of dowry of cash and car were not met. On
being compelled, he had also given an amount of
Rs.2,70,000/- cash from his business earning, in
spite of the same, accused was adamant in demanding
the car. On 24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m., the accused
persons with a common intention beat his daughter,
killed her by putting a noose around her neck and
hanged her. On coming to know of the incident, he
went along with his son from Surat and he was shocked
to see his daughter in such a state. When the
situation has become slightly normal, he has lodged a
report to take necessary action and to initiate legal
proceedings against the accused. Based on the
aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against
all the named accused including the appellants
herein, who are brother-in-law and mother-in-law of
the deceased for the alleged offences under Sections
498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 & 4
of the D.P. Act.
5. When the appellants have filed quash petition
before the High Court, it was disposed of by impugned
order directing the appellants to surrender before
3
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
the Court below and apply for grant of bail and the
same was directed to be considered in accordance with
law.
6. Pursuant to the complaint, crime was registered
and after registration, investigation was taken up
and after completing the investigation, final report
was filed on 12.10.2018 and the same was taken
cognizance by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by
order dated 22.10.2018.
7. We have heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
and Mr. Sahdev Singh, learned counsel for State of
Uttar Pradesh and Mohd. Asad Khan, learned counsel
for the respondent no.2/Complainant.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants has contended that the 1st Appellant
herein, is brother-in-law of the deceased is working
as a Cashier in ICICI Bank, Khalilabad. On the date
of incident i.e. on 24.07.2018, he was on duty. It is
submitted that he resides at Khalilabad in view of
his employment in ICICI Bank and his mother–2nd
Appellant Shamima Bano alias Sammi is also living
4
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
with him at Khalilabad since 2017. It is submitted
that even as per the case of the prosecution, the
incident has taken place at about 8 p.m. at
Gorakhpur, which is 40 kms away from Khalilabad. On
the date of incident, he was on duty at ICICI Bank
and entered the branch at 09:49 a.m. and came out at
06:25 p.m. In spite of the same, on vague and bald
allegations, appellants are sought to be prosecuted,
without any specific allegations either in complaint
or in the chargesheet. It is submitted that during
the pendency of investigation, the appellant has
filed affidavit before the Senior Superintendent of
Police, District Gorakhpur, stating that he was in
the Bank on the date of incident and requested to
investigate by looking into the call details of his
mobile number and also CCTV footage of the bank. It
is submitted that his sister-in-law i.e. the deceased
was under mental depression and was undergoing
treatment for the same. It is submitted that in spite
of such an affidavit filed by the appellants without
any investigation, in a casual and routine manner,
final report was filed with vague and omnibus
allegation against the appellants. It is submitted
5
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
that in absence of any specific allegations against
the appellants disclosing their active involvement,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken
cognizance in a routine and mechanical manner. It is
submitted that as there is no material or any
specific allegations against the appellants/accused
and if they are allowed to face the trial, it is
nothing but abuse of the process of law. Learned
counsel has submitted that it is evidently a fit
case to quash the proceedings, by allowing the
appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
1
st respondent-State and 2nd respondent-Complainant,
have submitted that in view of specific mention of
the names in the complaint as well as in the
chargesheet, it is not a case to quash the
proceedings at this stage. It is submitted that the
appellants have to prove their innocence in the
trial. It is submitted that all the accused were
demanding dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and a car from the
deceased and on 24.07.2018 with a common intention,
all of them caused injuries to the deceased and
ultimately killed her. It is submitted that as the
6
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
postmortem report clearly reveals cause of death as
asphyxia, there are no grounds to quash the
proceedings. Further, it is submitted that the quash
petition filed by the sister-in-law of the deceased
was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
15.04.2019.
10. Having heard the learned counsels on both the
sides, We have carefully perused impugned order,
other material placed on record and counter
affidavits filed on behalf of 1st Respondent–State as
well as on behalf of 2nd Respondent–complainant.
11. The appellants are brother-in-law and mother-inlaw respectively of the deceased. A perusal of the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to
which a crime was registered, does not indicate any
specific allegations by disclosing the involvement of
the appellants. It is the specific case of the 1st
appellant that he was working as a cashier in ICICI
Bank at Khalilabad branch, which is at about 40 kms
from Gorakhpur. The alleged incident was on
24.07.2018 at about 8 p.m. When the investigation was
pending, the 1st appellant has filed affidavit before
Senior Superintendent of Police on 08.08.2018, giving
7
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
his employment details and stated that he was falsely
implicated. It was his specific case that during the
relevant time, he was working at ICICI Bank,
Khalilabad branch, Gorakhpur and his mother was also
staying with him. The Branch Manager has endorsed his
presence in the branch, showing in-time at 09:49 a.m.
and out-time at 06:25 p.m. Even in the statement of
2
nd respondent recorded by the police and also in the
final report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.,
except omnibus and vague allegations, there is no
specific allegation against the appellants to show
their involvement for the offences alleged. This
Court, time and again, has noticed making the family
members of husband as accused by making casual
reference to them in matrimonial disputes. Learned
senior counsel for the appellants, in support of her
case, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr.1. In the aforesaid case, this
Court in identical circumstances, has quashed the
proceedings by observing that family members of
husband were shown as accused by making casual
1
(2012) 10 SCC 741
8
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
reference to them. In the very same judgment, it is
held that a large number of family members are shown
in the FIR by casually mentioning their names and the
contents do not disclose their active involvement, as
such, taking cognizance of the matter against them
was not justified. It is further held that taking
cognizance in such type of cases results in abuse of
judicial process. Paras 18 and 25 of the said
judgment, which are relevant for the purpose of this
case, read as under:
“18. Their Lordships of the Supreme
Court in Ramesh case [(2005)3 SCC
507 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 735] had been
pleased to hold that the bald
allegations made against the sisterin-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 chargesheet 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 Sections
498-A, 406 IPC 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
9
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
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.
25. 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 allegations 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
emphasise by highlighting is that, if
the FIR as it stands does not disclose
specific allegation against the
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
cognizance 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 process of law.
Simultaneously, the courts are
expected to adopt a cautious approach
in matters of quashing, especially in
cases of matrimonial disputes whether
the FIR in fact discloses commission
of an offence by the relatives of the
principal accused or the FIR prima
10
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
facie discloses a case of
overimplication 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.”
12. From a perusal of the complaint filed by the 2nd
respondent and the final report filed by the police
under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., We are of the view
that the aforesaid judgment fully supports the case
of the appellants. Even in the counter affidavits
filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, it is not
disputed that the 1st appellant was working in ICICI
Bank at Khalilabad branch, but merely stated that
there was a possibility to reach Gorakhpur by 8 p.m.
Though there is an allegation of causing injuries,
there are no other external injuries noticed in the
postmortem certificate, except the single ante-mortem
injury i.e. ligature mark around the neck, and the
cause of death is shown as asphyxia. Having regard to
the case of the appellants and the material placed on
record, we are of the considered view that except
vague and bald allegations against the appellants,
there are no specific allegations disclosing the
involvement of the appellants to prosecute them for
11
SLP(Crl.) No. 2786 of 2019
the offences alleged. In view of the judgment of this
Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr.1, which
squarely applies to the case of the appellants, we
are of the view that it is a fit case to quash the
proceedings.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed
and the impugned order dated 10.12.2018 passed in
Application No.44475 of 2018 by the High Court, is
set aside. Consequently, the chargesheet no.01 dated
12.10.2018 filed in FIR No.136 of 2018 on the file of
PS-Kotwali, District Gorakhpur for the offences under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 304-B of IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act and the consequential
order dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gorakhpur, is hereby quashed.
………………………………………………J
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………………………J
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
December 14, 2021
12
