NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 602 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8074 of 2018)

Tabrez Khan @ Guddu  & Ors.  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.         ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 06.02.2018  passed by the  High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application

No.3514 of 2018 whereby the High Court declined

to quash Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 as well

1

as the summoning order dated 10.03.2017 passed

by the ACJM, Court No.8, Varanasi in the aforesaid

case.

3. A  few facts need mention  for the disposal  of

this appeal, which involves a short point.

4. Respondent No.2 was married to one

Mohammad Pervez in the year 2000.   Appellant

No.3 is the mother of Mohammad Pervez and

mother­in­law of respondent No.2.  Appellant Nos.1

and 2 are the brothers of  Mohammad Pervez and

brothers­in­law of respondent No. 2.

5. Respondent  No.2  has filed a complaint case

against the appellants and also against her

husband­Mohammad Pervez in the Court of ACJM

Court  No.8,  Varanasi complaining therein for the

commission of the offences alleged to have been

committed by the appellants  qua  respondent No.2

under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian

2

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)

read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act. This case is

still pending.

6. On receipt of the summons of the said

complaint, the appellants felt aggrieved and they

filed an application under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.) in

the High Court and sought quashing of complaint

and the order issuing summons of the complaint to

them.  

7. By impugned order, the High Court declined to

quash Complaint  Case No.3065 of  2016 and also

declined to quash the summoning order dated

10.03.2017 passed by the ACJM, Court No.8,

Varanasi in the aforesaid case which has given rise

to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this

Court by the appellants.

3

8. So, the short question, which arises for

consideration  in this  appeal, is  whether the  High

Court was justified in rejecting the application filed

by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. Heard Mr. Amit Pawan, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG for

respondent No.1­State.   None appeared for

respondent No.2 despite service on her.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants and respondent No.1 and on perusal of

the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this

appeal, set aside the impugned order, allow the

application filed by the appellants under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C.  and quash the aforementioned

complaint filed by respondent No.2 insofar as it

relates to the appellants.

4

11. We have gone through the averments made in

the complaint and on its perusal, we do not find any

justification to proceed against the appellants.  

12. In  other  words, in  our view, there  does  not

appear to  be  any justification  or/and  prima  facie

case to proceed against the appellants either jointly

or severally for commission of the offences alleged

against them in the complaint. Indeed, the facts

stated against the  appellants in  the complaint  do

not  constitute  any case  as  alleged against  any of

them.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned

order is set aside.  As a consequence, the complaint

filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants is

hereby quashed.

14. We, however, make it clear that the complaint

qua  Mohammad Pervez Khan­husband of

5

respondent No.2 will be decided on its merit by the

concerned Magistrate in accordance with law

uninfluenced by any observations made by this

Court  because we have not  examined the case of

respondent No.2 qua her husband, who is neither a

party to these proceedings and nor he has filed any

petition to challenge the complaint filed against

him.

                                    .………...................................J.                                    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]    

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

            [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; April 05, 2019

6