Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.        1144             OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 8965/2013]     

Swapnil and Others … Appellant (s)   

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2013  

passed by the  High  Court  of Madhya Pradesh Bench at  

Indore.   As  per  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  

declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of  

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred  

to as ‘Cr.PC’) for quashing the proceedings and charges  

framed against  the  appellants  under  Section 498A,  506  

Part II of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition  

Act,  1961.  The  appellants  2  and  3  are  his  father  and  

mother respectively. The Respondent No. 2 is the wife of  

the  first  appellant.  She  lodged  a  complaint  with  Mahila  

Thana,  Indore Police Station on which FIR No. 50 dated  

02.05.2012 under Section 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC was  

registered.  It  was  alleged  in  the  complaint  that  the  

marriage  between  the  first  appellant  and  second  

respondent was performed on 24.06.2009 and after two  

months of the marriage, the appellants and the sister of  

the  first  appellant  started  demanding  dowry.  It  is  seen  

from Annexure-P3-application filed by the first appellant on  

14.07.2011  under  Section  9  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act,  

1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights that the second  

respondent had left the matrimonial house on 23.04.2011  

and thereafter she had not gone back. On 23.05.2011, a  

lawyer  notice  had  also  been  served  on  the  second  

respondent which was replied on 02.06.2011. During the  

pendency  of  the  proceedings  for  restitution  of  conjugal  

rights,  the  second respondent,  on 07.09.2011,  lodged a  

complaint  before  Mahila  Thana,  Indore  Police  Station  

2

Page 3

raising  allegations  against  the  appellants,  the  maternal  

uncle, maternal aunt and the sister of the first appellant.  

Paragraph  4  of  the  complaint  –Annexure-P4  reads  as  

follows:  

“4. The accused persons yesterday on 06.09.2011  having  common  intent  collectively  came  to  my  parental  house  and  while  hurling  abuses  as  Madarchod, Bahanchod etc. said that if you want life  of your mother, father, brother and sister then you  come within one month with Rs.1 lac cash balance 5  tola gold, Wagner Car which is purchased after your  marriage and money for Maruti  car otherwise your  mother-father, sister and brother will be kidnapped  and they will be killed. They gave threat to take over  possession on my house and said that what wrong  you have caused to us by sending copies in police in  reply of our notice, you do not know us yet. When  your  mother,  father,  brother  and  sisters  would  be  sent behind jail in false allegations then see govt. job  of  your  father  will  be  loosed  and  you  would  start  begging on road and gave threat that do not dare to  go in police, nobody would give evidence against us  in colony because we have approach with big leaders  and officers and gundas elements. If you go in police  then proceeding will be done against you not against  us.”

3. Annexure-P5  is  the  Record  of  Proceedings  dated  

12.12.2011 when parties were called before Mahila Police  

Station. The same is extracted below:

“Sir, In connection with enquiry of reference application  both the parties appeared in women police station  and  statement  of  both  were  recorded  which  are  enclosed  with  enquiry.  Applicant  told  that  her  

3

Page 4

husband Swapnil does not do any work/business and  other members of   in-laws house by putting demand  of dowry cause physical and mental harassment. Let  family  counseling  be  done  with  husband  so  that  domestic life may remain peaceful.  Non applicant told in his statement that my domestic  life could not run peacefully due to intervention of  members of parental house of Kirti. Family counseling of both parties was done. There  are  certain  family  differences  between  both  the  parties  hence  both  the  parties  were  suggested  to  rehabilitate their domestic life by court proceeding.  Report is submitted in your goodself.”   

4. The first appellant on 16.04.2012 withdrew the application  

filed  under  Section  9  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act,  1955,  

since  according  to  the  first  appellant  the  second  

respondent was not inclined to resume cohabitation. It was  

thereafter, the complaint dated 02.05.2012 leading to the  

impugned prosecution was filed by the second respondent.  

She  also  filed  a  complaint  under  Section  12  of  the  

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on  

17.05.2012.  It  seems  another  application  under  Section  

125 of Cr.PC was also filed by her.  

5. The  gist  of  the  complaint  dated  02.05.2012  reads  as  

follows:  

“… On 30.04.2012 they said if you do not fulfill our  demand then we would kill  you, thus my husband,  

4

Page 5

father in law, mother in law and sister in law gave  threat for life on the issue of demand of 10 tola gold,  maruti car and 1 lac rupees cash in dowry and have  subjected  me  on  physical  and  mental  harassment  now I have been harassed from cruelty of members  of in laws house and I do not want to enter into any  compromise rather I want legal proceeding. …”  

6. The  learned  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class  Magistrate,  

Indore framed the following charges:

“I,  Sarmesh  Singh  Judicial  Magistrate  First  Class  Indore  hereby  frame  following  charge  against  you  Anil S/o Ramdas R/o 73 Laxmipuri Colony, Indore:

1. You  being  husband  of  complainant  Kirti  subjected  her  to  mental  and  physical  torture  and harassment from 24.06.2009 to 30.04.2012  in  73  Laxmipuri  Colony Indore,  making  illegal  demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola gold  as dowry and by beating her caused cruelty?

2. You on 30.04.2012 with intention to intimidate  complainant  Kirti  gave  threat  to  cause  her  death,  as  such  by  intimidating  her  caused  criminal intimidation?

3. You  being  husband  of  complainant  Kirit  put  illegal demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, car and 10 tola  gold  as  dowry  on  various  intervals  from  24.06.2009  to  30.04.2012  from  complainant  Kirti and her relatives?

By doing such you have committed offence which is  punishable under section 498A, 506 Part-2, IPC and  section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,  which is  in  my  cognizance. I by this report order that you be tried in  above mentioned crimes.”

5

Page 6

7. The  appellants  filed  Criminal  Revision  No.  85  of  2013  

before the Sessions Court which was dismissed by Order  

dated 14.03.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.  

It is significant to note that even according to the learned  

Additional  Sessions  Judge  “it  is  possible  that  accused  

Swapnil was taking care of his wife…”.

8. If the intervening developments referred to above and the  

two complaints are analysed carefully, it can be seen that  

except  for  the  improvement  with  regard  to  the  alleged  

intimidation on 30.04.2012, the allegations in the earlier  

complaint dated 07.09.2011 are exactly the same. As a  

matter  of  fact,  there  was  an  allegation  with  regard  to  

criminal intimidation in the complaint dated 07.09.2011 as  

well,  as  can  be  seen  from the  extracted  portion of  the  

complaint.  However,  in the complaint  dated 02.05.2012,  

there is a grave allegation on intimidation to kill, made on  

30.04.2012.

9. The  first  appellant  and  second  respondent  had  in  fact  

solemnized  their  marriage  at  Arya  Samaj  Mandir  on  

16.06.2007 privately,  as they were stated to be in  love  

with  each  other  for  sometime.  Thereafter  only,  in  the  

6

Page 7

presence of the family members, marriage was solemnized  

on 24.06.2009.  

10. It has to be seen that admittedly the second respondent  

has been living separately since April,  2011. Thereafter,  

she had lodged a complaint on 07.09.2011 before the very  

same police station. The same was duly enquired into and  

it was closed stating that the dispute is actually between  

the  families  which  are  to  be  otherwise  settled  in  legal  

proceedings. If there are such differences between families  

which are  to  be  settled  in  legal  proceedings,  how such  

differences would constitute and give rise to a successful  

prosecution  under  Sections  498A  or  506  IPC  or  under  

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is the crucial  

question.

11. The second respondent has been living separately since  

April, 2011and hence, there is no question of any beating  

by  the  appellants  as  alleged  by  her.  The  relationship  

having  got  strained  ever  since  April,  2011,  even  

application for restitution of conjugal rights having been  

withdrawn on 16.04.2012 as the second respondent was  

not interested to live together, it is difficult to believe that  

7

Page 8

there is still  a demand for dowry on 30.04.2012 coupled  

with criminal intimidation. The allegations are vague and  

bereft of the details as to the place and the time of the  

incident.   We had called for the records and have gone  

through  the  same.  The  materials  before  the  learned  

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore are not sufficient to  

form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that  

the accused appellants have committed the offence under  

the charged Sections. The Additional Sessions Court and  

the  High  Court  missed  these  crucial  points  while  

considering  the  petition  filed  by  the  appellants  under  

Section 397 and Section 482 of the Cr.PC respectively. The  

veiled object behind the lame prosecution is apparently to  

harass the appellants. We are, hence, of the view that the  

impugned prosecution is wholly unfounded. Therefore, to  

secure the ends of justice and for preventing abuse of the  

process of the criminal court, the charges framed by the  

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No.  

10245  of  2012  against  the  accused  appellants  are  

quashed.  The  accused  appellants  are  discharged.  

However, we make it clear that nothing contained in this  

8

Page 9

judgment  shall  have  a  bearing  on  any  proceedings  

between the parties regarding their matrimonial disputes  

before the Family Court, since our observations are only  

for the purpose of this judgment.

12. The appeal is allowed as above.

                                                                                                                                     ………..…………………….….. …………J.

         (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA)

                                                    ………………….. …………………………J.

      (KURIAN JOSEPH) New Delhi; May 9, 2014.  

9