Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2070 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9092 of 2011]

CHANDRALEKHA & ORS. …        APPELLANTS

Vs.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. …        RESPONDENTS

O R D E R  

1. Leave granted.   

2. This appeal,  by special  leave,  challenges order dated  

14/9/2011 passed by the Rajasthan High Court  dismissing  

the petition filed by one Rajeev Bhandari and appellants 1, 2  

and 3 herein (original petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in the Special  

Leave Petition No.9092 of 2011) under Section 482 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of FIR

Page 2

lodged by respondent 2 against them under Sections 498A  

and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.   

2. Rajeev  Bhandari  is  the  husband  of  respondent  2.  

Appellant 1 is the mother-in-law and appellants 2 and 3 are  

the sisters-in-law of respondent 2.  

3. In  the  special  leave  petition,  Rajeev  Bhandari  was  

arraigned as petitioner 1.  However, on 9/12/2011, this court  

dismissed  the  special  leave  petition  insofar  as  Rajeev  

Bhandari is concerned.  Therefore, today, the challenge to  

the  impugned  order  can  be  said  to  be  raised  only  by  

appellants 1, 2 and 3.  

4. It is necessary to give a gist of the facts.  On 1/4/2009,  

respondent 2 lodged the FIR in question at Thana Mahila,  

District Jodhpur against Rajeev Bhandari, his father Meghraj  

Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3 alleging offences under  

Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC.  In the FIR, she stated that  

she got married to Rajeev Bhandari on 9/7/2002 at Jodhpur;  

2

Page 3

her father  gave cash of  Rs.1,25,000/-  and gold and silver  

ornaments, other articles, clothes, household utensils, etc. to  

her husband’s family;  she resided at Ahmedabad with her  

husband after her marriage;  her husband behaved well for  

about  two and half  months;   after  that,  the  behaviour  of  

Rajeev Bhandari,  his father and the appellants 1,  2 and 3  

changed;  they  started  harassing  her  because  she  had  

brought less dowry; they did not give her sufficient food to  

eat; in her absence, appellants 1, 2 and 3  used to scatter  

her clothes and belongings and they demanded cash of Rs.6  

lakhs.  It is further stated in the complaint that on 26/1/2003,  

all of them harassed her and asked her to bring Rs.6 lakhs  

and gold and silver items from her father and threatened her  

that if she does not bring them, she will suffer.  According to  

her,  she suffered mental  shock because of  this  behaviour  

and, hence, she left the matrimonial home in the morning of  

27/1/2003.   Then,  her  husband  Rajeev  Bhandari  came  

searching for her and assured that there will be no demand  

of  dowry.   Due  to  this  assurance,  she  again  went  to  the  

matrimonial home.  However, there was no difference in the  

3

Page 4

behaviour of Rajeev Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3.  The  

dowry demand persisted.  She, therefore, phoned her father  

and  told  him to  come to  Ahmedabad.  On  14/2/2003,  her  

father  came  to  Ahmedabad  and  took  her  to  Jodhpur  on  

15/2/2003.   Since  then,  she  has  been  staying  with  her  

parents.  According to her, her husband Rajeev Bhandari and  

appellants 1, 2 and 3 have not contacted her thereafter.  She  

contacted  them  and  asked  them  to  return  her  original  

degree  certificate,  silver  and  gold  ornaments  and  other  

articles.   But,  they  ignored  her  request.   She,  therefore,  

requested  the  police  to  take  legal  action  against  her  

husband  Rajeev  Bhandari,  her  father-in-law  Meghraj  

Bhandari and appellants 1, 2 and 3.  It must be stated here  

that  during  the  pendency  of  the  proceedings,  Meghraj  

Bhandari died.  

5. Before the Rajasthan High Court, it was submitted that  

a perusal of the FIR shows that respondent 2 had left her  

matrimonial  home  in  the  year  2003  and  was  residing  in  

Jodhpur.  No offence can be said to have been committed by  

4

Page 5

the  appellants  in  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  Jodhpur.  

Hence, registration of FIR at Mahila Thana, Jodhpur is illegal.  

It was also urged that there is delay in lodging the FIR.  On  

these grounds, it was prayed that the FIR be quashed.  The  

Rajasthan High Court was of the view that part of cause of  

action had accrued at Jodhpur.  It was held that since the  

offence is a continuous offence, FIR cannot be quashed on  

the ground of jurisdiction.  The High Court also refused to  

quash the FIR on the ground of delay.  

6. Before we refer to the submissions of learned counsel  

for  the  appellants,  we must  note  that  office  report  dated  

16/8/2012  indicates  that  respondent  2  has  been  served.  

However, she has not engaged any counsel.  We, therefore,  

requested Ms. Asha Nair to assist us on her behalf as amicus  

curiae. Ms. Nair has accordingly assisted us.    

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  

respondent 2 left the matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 and  

the  FIR  was  filed  on  1/4/2009  after  six  years.   Counsel  

5

Page 6

submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are of general  

nature and extremely vague.  The FIR, therefore, deserves to  

be quashed. Ms. Nair, on the other hand, has supported the  

order of the High Court.  

8. We must, at the outset, state that the High Court’s view  

on jurisdiction meets with our approval and we confirm the  

view.  However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after  

taking into  consideration the  attendant  circumstances,  we  

are  of  the  opinion  that  the  FIR  lodged  by  respondent  2  

insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be  

quashed.  The allegations are extremely general in nature.  

No  specific  role  is  attributed  to  each  of  the  appellants.  

Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided  

with  her  husband at  Ahmedabad.   It  is  not  clear  whether  

appellants  1,  2  and  3  were  residing  with  them  at  

Ahmedabad.   The  marriage  took  place  on  9/7/2002  and  

respondent 2 left  her matrimonial  home on 15/2/2003 i.e.  

within a period of seven months.  Thereafter, respondent 2  

took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants.  

6

Page 7

Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged  

making  extremely  vague  and  general  allegations  against  

appellants  1,  2  and 3.   It  is  important  to  remember  that  

appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law.  In our opinion, such  

extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt  

about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2  

against  appellants  1,  2  and  3,  which  are,  in  any  case,  

general in nature.  We have no doubt that by making such  

reckless  and vague allegations,  respondent 2  has tried to  

rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the  

confirmed  opinion  that  continuation  of  the  criminal  

proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this  

FIR is an abuse of process of law.  In the interest of justice,  

therefore,  the  FIR  deserves  to  be  quashed  insofar  as  it  

relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.   

9. Hence, impugned judgment and order dated 14/9/2011  

passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc.  

Petition No.1935 of 2009 is quashed and set aside insofar as  

it refuses to quash the FIR in question against appellants 1, 2  

7

Page 8

and 3.  FIR No.66 of 2009 lodged at Mahila Thana, District  

Jodhpur,  Rajasthan  is  quashed  insofar  as  it  relates  to  

appellants 1, 2 and 3 viz. Smt. Chandralekha, Vandana and  

Vinita respectively.  We make it clear that so far as Rajeev  

Bhandari  s/o.  Meghraj  Bhandari  is  concerned,  the  

proceedings shall go on in accordance with law. We have not  

quashed FIR No.66 of 2009 insofar as it  relates to Rajeev  

Bhandari.   Needless  to  say  that  the  court  seized  of  the  

complaint  shall  deal  with  Rajeev  Bhandari’s  case  

independently, without being influenced by anything said by  

us on the merits of the case and in accordance with law.   

10. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.  

……………………………………………..J.        (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J.     (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 14, 2012.

8

Page 9

9