Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.   1499      of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2185 of 2015)

RAKHI MISHRA                                                 .....Appellant(s) Versus

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                                              ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

This  Appeal  is  filed  against  an  order  dated  22.09.2014

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna allowing the

application filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by Respondents 2

and 4 to 10.  

2. A complaint was preferred by the Appellant on 18.07.2013

to  the  SHO,  Police  Station  Bihiya,  District  Bhojpur,  Bihar

which  was  registered  as  FIR  No.140  of  2013  dated

18.07.2013 under Section 498 A, 323, 354 A (1), 354 B read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  It was stated in

the  said  complaint  that  the  Appellant  was  married  to

Santosh  Kumar  Tiwari  son  of  Shivdhyan  Tiwari  on

1

18.02.2012.  She complained of ill-treatment at the hands of

her  husband  and  the  other  members  of  his  family.   She

mentioned about the demand of a car.  She further stated in

the complaint that her father had already given a dowry of

Rs.4 lakhs besides gifts like motor-cycle, T.V. fridge, cooler,

washing machine, sofa, bed, almirah, five suit cases, one big

box and gold ornaments in which necklace, chain, 6 pieces

bangles, ear rings, jhumka, tops, ring and silver ornaments

in which two payals, bichiyas and other things, the price of

which was around Rs.5 lakhs.   

3. The Appellant’s husband was working in the Air Force and he

was threatening that she would be killed if the demand of

additional  dowry  was  not  met.   She  also  complained  of

attempted rape by her father-in-law.  Allegations were made

by the Appellant in her complaint against ill-treatment by

the  Respondents.  On  completion  of  investigation,  a

charge-sheet  was  filed  on  11.10.2010  against  Santosh

Kumar  Tiwari.   The  Investigating  Officer  did  not  find  any

material  regarding  the  involvement  of  the  Respondent

Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5.  By an order dated 20.01.2014, the Chief

Judicial  Magistrate,  while  taking note  of  the fact  that  the

names of Santosh Kumar Tiwari and Respondent Nos. 6 to

2

12 were mentioned in  column No.11 of  the charge-sheet,

issued  summons  to  Respondent  Nos.2  to  11  along  with

Santosh Kumar Tiwari.  The Chief Judicial Magistrate found

that  a  prima  facie case  was  made  out  against  the

Respondents  also  for  their  involvement  in  offences  under

Sections 498 A/34, 354 A, 354 B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  The Respondents filed

an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing

of  the proceedings  which was allowed by  an order  dated

22.09.2014  by  the  High  Court,  the  legality  of  which  is

assailed in this appeal.  

4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

We are of the considered opinion that the High Court erred

in allowing the application filed by Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5,

6,  7,  8,  9  and 10 and quashing the criminal  proceedings

against them.  A perusal of the FIR would clearly show that

the Appellant alleged cruelty against Respondent Nos.2, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.  This Court in Sonu Gupta v. Deepak

Gupta and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 424, 426 held as follows:  

“At  the  stage  of  cognizance  and  summoning  the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a  view to  take  cognizance  of  the  offence  to  find  out whether a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused persons.  At this stage, the Magistrate is not

3

required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials would lead to conviction or not.”      

5. The  order  passed  by  the  Trial  Court  taking  cognizance

against R-2 and R-4 to R-9 is in conformity with the law

laid down in the above judgment.  It is settled law that the

power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is exercised by the High

Court only in exceptional circumstances only when a prima

facie case is not made out against the accused.  The test

applied by this Court for interference at the initial stage of a

prosecution is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima

facie establish a case.  

6. A perusal of the complaint would disclose a prima facie case

against Respondent Nos.2, 4 to 10.  The order passed by the

Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  by  which  cognizance  was  taken

ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court.  

7. For the aforementioned reasons the Appeal is allowed and

the  order  of  the  High  Court  quashing  the  criminal

proceedings against Respondent Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and

10 is set aside.  The Respondents are not precluded from

4

availing remedies available to them.      

                 ..…..............................J                                                 [S.A.BOBDE]

                    ..…................................J                                                                    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

New Delhi, August 24, 2017

5