Page 1

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

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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  

7

Page 8

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  

8

Page 9

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  

9

Page 10

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  

1

Page 11

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  

1

Page 12

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  

1

Page 13

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.

1

Page 14

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  

1

Page 15

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  

1

Page 16

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  

1

Page 17

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  

1

Page 18

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  

1

Page 19

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  

1

Page 20

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  

2

Page 21

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  

2

Page 22

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  

2

Page 23

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  

2

Page 24

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  

2

Page 25

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  

2

Page 26

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  

2

Page 27

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.

2

Page 28

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

2