whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - No

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 602 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8074 of 2018)
Tabrez Khan @ Guddu  & Ors.  ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.         ….Respondent(s)
               
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   06.02.2018  passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Application
No.3514 of 2018 whereby the High Court declined
to quash Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 as well
1
as the summoning order dated 10.03.2017 passed
by the ACJM, Court No.8, Varanasi in the aforesaid
case.
3. A few facts need mention for the disposal of
this appeal, which involves a short point.
4. Respondent   No.2   was   married   to   one
Mohammad   Pervez   in   the   year   2000.     Appellant
No.3   is   the   mother   of   Mohammad   Pervez   and
mother­in­law of respondent No.2.  Appellant Nos.1
and 2 are the brothers of Mohammad Pervez and
brothers­in­law of respondent No. 2.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint case
against   the   appellants   and   also   against   her
husband­Mohammad Pervez in the Court of ACJM
Court No.8, Varanasi complaining therein for the
commission   of   the   offences   alleged   to   have   been
committed by the appellants  qua  respondent No.2
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
2
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act. This case is
still pending.
6. On   receipt   of   the   summons   of   the   said
complaint,  the  appellants felt aggrieved and  they
filed an application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.) in
the High Court and sought quashing of complaint
and the order issuing summons of the complaint to
them. 
7. By impugned order, the High Court declined to
quash Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 and also
declined   to   quash   the   summoning   order   dated
10.03.2017   passed   by   the   ACJM,   Court   No.8,
Varanasi in the aforesaid case which has given rise
to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this
Court by the appellants.
3
8. So,   the   short   question,   which   arises   for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was justified in rejecting the application filed
by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Heard Mr. Amit Pawan, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG for
respondent   No.1­State.     None   appeared   for
respondent No.2 despite service on her.
10. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the
appellants and respondent No.1 and on perusal of
the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this
appeal,   set   aside   the   impugned   order,   allow   the
application   filed   by   the   appellants   under   Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the aforementioned
complaint   filed   by   respondent   No.2   insofar   as   it
relates to the appellants.
4
11. We have gone through the averments made in
the complaint and on its perusal, we do not find any
justification to proceed against the appellants.
12. In other words, in our view, there does not
appear to be any justification or/and  prima facie
case to proceed against the appellants either jointly
or severally for commission of the offences alleged
against  them in  the  complaint. Indeed, the  facts
stated against the appellants in the complaint do
not constitute any case as alleged against any of
them.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
order is set aside.  As a consequence, the complaint
filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants is
hereby quashed.
14. We, however, make it clear that the complaint
qua  Mohammad   Pervez   Khan­husband   of
5
respondent No.2 will be decided on its merit by the
concerned   Magistrate   in   accordance   with   law
uninfluenced   by   any   observations   made   by   this
Court because we have not examined the case of
respondent No.2 qua her husband, who is neither a
party to these proceedings and nor he has filed any
petition   to   challenge   the   complaint   filed   against
him.
                                     .………...................................J.
                                   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] 
                                     …...……..................................J.
             [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 05, 2019
6