REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1709  OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl) No.7924 of 2008)

Bhushan Kumar Meen …    Appellant   Vs.

State of Punjab and Ors. …    Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who had all along been appearing  

in  person,  was  represented  by  counsel,  Mr.  

Vijay K. Aggarwal, at the time of final hearing

of the appeal, which is directed against the  

judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by  

the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.M.  

No.13709  of  2007,  dismissing  the  appellant’s  

application  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  for  

quashing the FIR No.9 dated 10.1.2007 of P.S.  

Patiala, filed by his wife, the respondent No.2  

herein.  

3. The  appellant’s  marriage  was  solemnized  with  

the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2004 as per Sikh  

rites.  After their marriage, the couple went  

to  Gujarat  where  the  appellant  was  employed  

with  Patronet  L.N.G.  Limited  in  District  

Bharuch, Gujarat, and lived together as husband  

and wife, though no child was born out of the  

said wedlock.  Subsequently, differences arose  

between the appellant and the respondent No.2  

which resulted in a complaint  being made by  

the respondent No.2 on 12.5.2006 to the Senior  

2

Superintendent of Police, Patiala, requesting  

that a criminal case be registered against the  

appellant  under  Sections  406  and  498-A  IPC.  

The said complaint was forwarded to the Women’s  

Cell in Patiala, which made a detailed inquiry  

into  the  allegations  made  by  the  respondent  

No.2  against  the  appellant.   After  such  

inquiry,  the  Women’s  Cell  came  to  the  

conclusion that even in spite of the periodical  

differences  between  the  appellant  and  the  

respondent  No.2,  they  continued  to  maintain  

their relationship as husband and wife.  From  

the report it appears that even after she left  

Gujarat, at the instance of her husband she  

returned  to  Gujarat  in  January  2006,  and,  

thereafter,  they  visited  Mount  Abu,  Bombay,  

Shirdi, Udaipur, Jaipur, Delhi and Gandhinagar,  

and both of them even went to Ambala to attend  

the retirement function of her mother-in-law,  

but after reaching Ambala she left for Patiala  

3

instead  of  going  with  the  appellant  to  the  

Zirakpur.  The Women’s Cell also found that the  

respondent No.2 had great love for her parents  

and as a result she wanted to stay with them  

more often.  Even on the question of dowry, it  

was found that the entire complaint had been  

exaggerated and that the respondent No.2 was  

determined to teach her husband and his family  

members  a  lesson  by  levelling  serious  

allegations  against  them.   The  ultimate  

conclusion arrived at by the Women’s Cell was  

that nothing had come out from the inquiry to  

prove  the  demand  of  dowry  and  issuance  of  

threat, and that the dispute was of a civil  

nature which did not call for any action by the  

local police at the said stage.

4. Subsequently, a further inquiry was held by the  

Superintendent of Police, Patiala, who despite  

taking into consideration the report filed by  

4

the  Women’s  Cell  Patiala,  came  to  the  

conclusion that the respondent No.2 had been  

harassed by the appellant and her father-in-law  

and mother-in-law for not meeting the demand of  

dowry and suggested action to be taken under  

Sections 406, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of  

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  However, on  

receipt  of  the  said  report,  the  Senior  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Patiala,  met  the  

appellant and the respondent No.2 and was of  

the view that the matter did not appear to be a  

case of demand of dowry and the allegations  

needed to be checked again for evidence, though  

the ingredients of Section 498-A could be true.  

The  Superintendent  of  Police,  Patiala,  was  

directed  to  re-verify  and  substantiate  the  

evidence.

5. After  further  inquiry,  the  Superintendent  of  

Police, once again came to the conclusion that  

5

the appellant had harassed the respondent No.2  

which  merited  the  registration  of  a  case  

against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.  

Upon the case being registered, the appellant  

filed  Criminal  Misc.  No.13709  of  2007  under  

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.  The  

matter was heard by the learned Single Judge,  

who, by his order dated 27.8.2008, dismissed  

the  application  filed  by  the  appellant  for  

quashing of the FIR and held that in view of  

the specific allegations contained therein, no  

ground for quashing the same had been made out  

and the appellant would be at liberty to set up  

the plea in defence at the appropriate stage of  

the trial.

6. Aggrieved  by  the  said  order  of  the  learned  

Single Judge, the appellant filed the Special  

Leave Petition out of which the present appeal  

arises.

6

7. Appearing  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  Vijay  K.  

Aggarwal, learned Advocate, submitted that at  

every  stage  the  appellant  had  made  sincere  

attempts  to  make  the  marriage  with  the  

respondent No.2 work, but at every stage such  

efforts of the appellant had been resisted. It  

was submitted that the appellant had agreed to  

live with the respondent No.2 in a house which  

was  separate  from  the  house  in  which  his  

parents  lived,  since  it  was  one  of  the  

complaints of the respondent No.2 that he was  

paying more attention to his parents than to  

her.   According  to  the  learned  counsel  

appearing for the appellants, all the attempts  

made by the appellant to make the marriage work  

proved to be futile on account of the attitude  

of the respondent No.2, and even the complaint  

made  against  him  was  a  fallout  thereof,  

7

although, there was no truth whatsoever in any  

of the allegations made in the FIR.

8. On behalf of the respondent No.2 an attempt was  

made to show that the appellant is a person who  

was only interested in harassing the respondent  

No.2 for bringing dowry.  However, the said  

allegations do not bear scrutiny in view of the  

report filed by the Women’s Cell, Patiala that  

the  appellant  and  the  respondent  No.2  had  

visited  various  places  all  over  the  country  

together,  which,  according  to  the  learned  

counsel for the appellant, clearly proves that  

the appellant and the respondent No.2 continued  

to maintain a normal relationship of husband  

and wife despite their moments of disagreement.  

Coupled with the above, is the observation of  

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala,  

that after meeting the couple he was of the  

view that the matter did not relate to a dowry  

8

offence and that the dispute appeared to be of  

a civil nature.   

9. The complaint made by the respondent No.2 does  

not, in our view, make out a case under Section  

498-A IPC and appears to have been filed by the  

respondent  No.2  based  on  misunderstandings  

between  the  parties  prompting  the  respondent  

No.2  to  attack  the  appellant  for  something  

which is likely to have occurred during their  

stormy marriage.

10. In our view, the learned Single Judge of the  

High Court did not appreciate the nature of the  

on and off relationship between the appellant  

and the respondent No.2, which caused him to  

dismiss  the  appellant’s  application  under  

Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that there  

were serious allegations in the FIR which have  

been registered against the appellant regarding  

his  alleged  cruelty  and  maltreatment  of  the  

9

respondent  No.2  and  even  misappropriation  by  

him.

11. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of  

the learned Single Judge, since from the entire  

records  available  it  is  clear  that  the  

complaint made by the respondent No.2 did not  

make out a prima facie case to go to trial  

under Section 498-A IPC.

12. In  such  circumstances,  we  are  inclined  to  

accept  Mr.  Aggarwal’s  submissions  that  no  

offence under Section 498-A IPC had been made  

out  against  the  appellant  and  the  complaint  

was, therefore, liable to be rejected and the  

FIR was also liable to be quashed.

13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned  

order of the High Court is set aside and the  

FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 against the  

appellant, and all the proceedings taken on the  

basis thereof, are quashed.

10

……………………………………………………J.               (ALTAMAS KABIR)

……………………………………………………J.                       (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

……………………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi, Dated: 02.09.2011.

11