Criminal complaint under sec.406 and sec.6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - against the Grand father( Their relationship with the husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1 was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. ) - petition to quash the complaint against them - High court rejected - Apex court held that In the FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them.The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. and as such set aside the order of High court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners only =
declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.=
We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint.
In the FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have
been named without attributing any specific role to them.
The relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant.
In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material.
Only the husband, his parents or at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the
wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.
10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are
well known.
If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the
criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction
can be exercised.
Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].
11. Applying the above tests, the proceedings in the present case are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.
12. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against
the appellants, without expressing any opinion about the case of the
complainant against the other accused.
2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41924
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2055 of 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4656 of 2011]
KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Order
dated 2nd May, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The case of the complainant in the FIR registered
on 4th May, 2010 in the Bhelupur Police Station at Varanasi is that her
marriage was solemnised on 30th April, 2005. Her brothers who lived abroad
gave lot of dowry and cash in the marriage but her family could not fulfil
more demands raised by the elder brother of her husband’s father, who was
the head of the joint family on account of which family members of her
husband were not satisfied and tortured her. On account of torture, she
came to her parents house with her child on 1st March, 2009 she gave a
complaint on 27th April, 2010 leading to registration of the FIR
on 4th May, 2010. She also filed complaint in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. In the said
complaint, the appellants were summoned vide Order dated 30th November,
2010.
4. Aggrieved by the said summons, the appellants moved the High Court
under Section 482 OF THE Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) with the
plea that the summoning was not justified as neither they were named in the
FIR got registered by the complainant nor any individual role was
attributed to them in the criminal complaint. Their relationship with the
husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1
was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. In such
remote relationship, the appellants will have no interest in raising any
demand for dowry or causing any harassment to the complainant. Their
implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court.
5. The High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the
statement of the complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. disclosed
the commission of offence and thus there was no illegality in the order of
summoning.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that marriage took place
in the year 2005 and a child was born on 15th January, 2009. Complaint was
filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by the husband of
the complainant on 24th April, 2010. In the FIR, initially filed, there
was no allegation against the appellants but in the subsequent complaint,
the appellants were also named as accused without any specific allegation
against them. Thus, requiring the appellants to face criminal proceedings
was nothing but abuse of the Court’s process.
8. On 27th June, 2011, while issuing notice this Court stayed further
proceedings in the criminal complaint.
9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have
been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans
Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the
wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.
10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are
well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the
criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction
can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].
11. Applying the above tests, the proceedings in the present case are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.
12. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against
the appellants, without expressing any opinion about the case of the
complainant against the other accused.
.……..…………………………….J.
[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]
.….………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
September 16, 2014
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.14 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Crl.A.No......../2014 arising from Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 4656/2011
KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 16/09/2014 This petition was called on for Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shekhar Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Shomila Bakshi,Adv.
Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi,Adv.
Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His
Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1] (2000) 5 SCC 207
[2] (2000) 8 SCC 547
[3] (1998) 5 SCC 749
[4] (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335
[5] (2011) 11 SCC 259
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have been named without attributing any specific role to them.The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific role and material to support such role. and as such set aside the order of High court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners only =
declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.=
We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint.
In the FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have
been named without attributing any specific role to them.
The relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant.
In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material.
Only the husband, his parents or at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the
wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.
10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are
well known.
If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the
criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction
can be exercised.
Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].
11. Applying the above tests, the proceedings in the present case are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.
12. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against
the appellants, without expressing any opinion about the case of the
complainant against the other accused.
2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41924
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2055 of 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4656 of 2011]
KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Order
dated 2nd May, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad declining
to quash the proceedings against the appellants under Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The case of the complainant in the FIR registered
on 4th May, 2010 in the Bhelupur Police Station at Varanasi is that her
marriage was solemnised on 30th April, 2005. Her brothers who lived abroad
gave lot of dowry and cash in the marriage but her family could not fulfil
more demands raised by the elder brother of her husband’s father, who was
the head of the joint family on account of which family members of her
husband were not satisfied and tortured her. On account of torture, she
came to her parents house with her child on 1st March, 2009 she gave a
complaint on 27th April, 2010 leading to registration of the FIR
on 4th May, 2010. She also filed complaint in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. In the said
complaint, the appellants were summoned vide Order dated 30th November,
2010.
4. Aggrieved by the said summons, the appellants moved the High Court
under Section 482 OF THE Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) with the
plea that the summoning was not justified as neither they were named in the
FIR got registered by the complainant nor any individual role was
attributed to them in the criminal complaint. Their relationship with the
husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the appellant No.1
was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. In such
remote relationship, the appellants will have no interest in raising any
demand for dowry or causing any harassment to the complainant. Their
implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court.
5. The High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the
statement of the complainant under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. disclosed
the commission of offence and thus there was no illegality in the order of
summoning.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that marriage took place
in the year 2005 and a child was born on 15th January, 2009. Complaint was
filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by the husband of
the complainant on 24th April, 2010. In the FIR, initially filed, there
was no allegation against the appellants but in the subsequent complaint,
the appellants were also named as accused without any specific allegation
against them. Thus, requiring the appellants to face criminal proceedings
was nothing but abuse of the Court’s process.
8. On 27th June, 2011, while issuing notice this Court stayed further
proceedings in the criminal complaint.
9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal complaint. In the FIR,
the appellants have not been named and in the criminal complaint they have
been named without attributing any specific role to them. The relationship
of the appellants with the husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans
Raj vs. State of Punjab & Ors.[1], it was observed:-
“5………A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the
in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not
discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against
the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be
making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the
case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have
happened in the instant case.”
The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant relatives
without there being specific material. Only the husband, his parents or at
best close family members may be expected to demand dowry or to harass the
wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible material to
support allegations made against such distant relations. Mere naming of
distant relations is not enough to summon them in absence of any specific
role and material to support such role.
10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in a criminal complaint are
well known. If there are triable issues, the Court is not expected to go
into the veracity of the rival versions but where on the face of it, the
criminal proceedings are abuse of Court’s process, quashing jurisdiction
can be exercised. Reference may be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar and Anr.[2], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Ors.[3], State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and
Ors.[4] and Asmathunnisa vs. State of A.P. represented by the Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr.[5].
11. Applying the above tests, the proceedings in the present case are
clearly the abuse of the Court’s process.
12. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and quash the proceedings against
the appellants, without expressing any opinion about the case of the
complainant against the other accused.
.……..…………………………….J.
[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]
.….………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
September 16, 2014
ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment COURT NO.14 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Crl.A.No......../2014 arising from Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 4656/2011
KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 16/09/2014 This petition was called on for Judgment today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shekhar Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Shomila Bakshi,Adv.
Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi,Adv.
Mr. M. R. Shamshad,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda and His
Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1] (2000) 5 SCC 207
[2] (2000) 8 SCC 547
[3] (1998) 5 SCC 749
[4] (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335
[5] (2011) 11 SCC 259
