Page 1

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

Page 2

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 27 th  

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.

Page 3

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

Page 4

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  1  (2000) 5 SCC 207 2  (2000) 8 SCC 547

Page 5

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

3  (1998) 5 SCC 749 4  (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335 5  (2011) 11 SCC 259

Page 6

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)