Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.456 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.6437 OF 2013

TARAMANI PARAKH        …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. & ORS.                           …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order  

dated 20th February, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature  

of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Misc. Criminal Case No.9759 of  

2012.

3. The  appellant  was  married  to  Respondent  No.2  on  18th  

November,  2009.  She lodged complaint dated 19th May, 2011  

alleging that Respondent No.2 and his parents harassed her with  

demand of dowry amounting to cruelty.  This led to registration of  

FIR  being  Crime  No.15811  under  Sections  498-A/34  of  IPC  at  

Police Station Hujrat Kotwali, Gwalior.  After investigation, charge  

sheet was filed against Respondent No.2 and his parents which  

has  been  registered  as  Criminal  Case  No.163/12  before  the  

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.

Page 2

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

4. The  respondents  accused  moved  the  High  Court  under  

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the  

proceedings by submitting that  the behaviour  of  the appellant  

was not cordial and in spite of efforts of the accused, she failed to  

improve her behaviour and her father took her with him on 22nd  

May, 2010.  The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the  

Hindu  Marriage  Act.   In  mediation  proceedings,  the  appellant  

stated  that  she  did  not  want  to  live  with  her  husband.  

Thereupon, the respondent filed a divorce petition on 26th April,  

2011 which was pending.   It was thereafter that the appellant  

filed  the  impugned  complaint  dated  19th May,  2011  which  

contained false allegations.

5. The petition was contested by the appellant.

6. The  High  Court  relying  upon  judgments  of  this  Court  in  

Neelu  Chopra  and  another vs. Bharti  1  ,  Manoj  Mahavir  

Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Moddar and another  2   and  

Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of  Uttar Pradesh  

and another  3   held that since there were no specific allegations,  

the criminal proceedings against the accused amounted to abuse  

of the court’s process.  Accordingly, the High Court quashed the  

criminal proceedings.  

1 (2009) 10 SCC 184 2 (2010) 10 SCC 673 3 (2012) 10 SCC 741

2Page 2 of 11

Page 3

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

7. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant has approached this  

Court.

8. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was  

the conduct of the accused on account of their  not being  

satisfied  with  the  dowry  given  and  the  inability  of  the  

appellant’s family to meet such demands that the appellant  

was forced to leave the matrimonial home.  The appellant  

was keen to continue in the matrimonial home and to return  

home  even  after  being  forced  to  leave  but  the  accused  

refused to take her back.  The husband has filed a divorce  

petition  which  is  without  any  legal  basis.   The  appellant  

lodged the complaint after filing of the divorce petition for  

the reason that the appellant had earlier remained hopeful  

that the matter may be amicably settled. It was only after  

she  lost  all  hopes  that  she  had  to  initiate  criminal  

proceedings in respect of cruelty meted out to her.  The High  

Court in proceedings under Section 482 could not quash the  

proceedings merely with the observation that the allegations  

were omnibus.  The power of quashing could be exercised  

sparingly  and  only  if  no  case  was  made  out  from  the  

3Page 3 of 11

Page 4

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

allegations  taken  as  correct  or  where  the  complaint  was  

absurd or legally not maintainable.  In the FIR, the appellant  

has specifically mentioned that the accused harassed her for  

dowry  by  taunting  her  and  beating  her.   It  was  already  

mentioned that she was deprived of her belongings by the  

accused.

10. Learned counsel for the accused respondents supported  

the impugned order passed by the High Court.

11. Law  relating  to  quashing  is  well  settled.   If  the  

allegations are absurd or do not made out any case or if it  

can  be  held  that  there  is  abuse  of  process  of  law,  the  

proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the  

Court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version  

or  the  counter  version.   In  matrimonial  cases,  the  Courts  

have  to  be  cautious  when  omnibus  allegations  are  made  

particularly  against  relatives  who  are  not  generally  

concerned with the affairs of the couple.  We may refer to  

the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue.  Referring  

to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander  

and Anr.  4  , it was observed:

4 (2012) 8 SCC 460

4Page 4 of 11

Page 5

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

“27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the  Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the   power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised  in  invoking  these  powers.  The  power  of  quashing   criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in   terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised   very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in   the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the   uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of   the case and the documents submitted therewith prima  facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are   so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no  prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and  where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not   satisfied then the Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere.  No   meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for   considering whether the case would end in conviction or   not  at  the stage of  framing of  charge or  quashing of   charge.

27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely   essential  to prevent patent miscarriage of  justice and  for  correcting  some  grave  error  that  might  be  committed  by  the  subordinate  courts  even  in  such  cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the  threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its   inherent powers.

27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in   any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in   force to the very initiation or institution and continuance   of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to   provide specific protection to an accused.

27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a  person and the right of the complainant or prosecution  to investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to  be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8. Where  the  allegations  made  and  as  they  appeared  from  the  record  and  documents  annexed  therewith to predominantly  give rise and constitute a   “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and does   not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence,   the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even   

5Page 5 of 11

Page 6

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

in  such  cases,  the  court  would  not  embark  upon  the   critical analysis of the evidence.

27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts   have  to  observe  is  that  it  cannot  examine  the  facts,   evidence and materials on record to determine whether   there  is  sufficient  material  on  the  basis  of  which  the   case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned  primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether   they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse   of the process of court leading to injustice.

27.10. It  is  neither  necessary nor  is  the court  called   upon  to  hold  a  full-fledged  enquiry  or  to  appreciate   evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find   out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.

27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and   also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim  is  maintainable,  does  not  mean  that  a  criminal   complaint cannot be maintained.

27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228   and/or under Section 482,  the Court  cannot  take into   consideration  external  materials  given by  an accused  for  reaching  the  conclusion  that  no  offence  was  disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal.   The Court  has  to consider the record  and documents   annexed therewith by the prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule   of  continuous prosecution.  Where the offence is  even  broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to  permit  continuation  of  prosecution  rather  than  its   quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected  to  marshal  the  records  with  a  view  to  decide   admissibility and reliability of the documents or records   but is an opinion formed prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet,  report  under  Section  173(2)  of  the  Code,  suffers  from  fundamental  legal   defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to   frame a charge.

27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the   Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of   the  Code  or  that  the  interest  of  justice  favours,   otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be   exercised  ex  debito  justitiae i.e.  to  do  real  and  

6Page 6 of 11

Page 7

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

substantial justice for administration of which alone, the   courts exist.

(Ref.  State  of  W.B. v.  Swapan  Kumar  Guha  [(1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR   1982 SC 949];  Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.  Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC  692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234];  Janata Dal v.  H.S.  Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri)   36  :  AIR  1993 SC 892];  Rupan  Deol  Bajaj v.  Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995  SCC (Cri) 1059];  G. Sagar Suri v.  State of U.P.  [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513];  Ajay  Mitra v.  State of M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003  SCC  (Cri)  703];  Pepsi  Foods  Ltd. v.  Special  Judicial  Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749 :  1998  SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128]; State of U.P.  v.  O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC  (Cri)  497];  Ganesh  Narayan  Hegde v.  S.  Bangarappa [(1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri)   634];  Zandu  Pharmaceutical  Works  Ltd. v.  Mohd.  Sharaful  Haque [(2005)  1  SCC  122  :   2005  SCC  (Cri)  283];  Medchl  Chemicals  &  Pharma (P) Ltd. v.  Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3  SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC   1869];  Shakson  Belthissor v.  State  of  Kerala  [(2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412];   V.V.S. Rama Sharma v.  State of U.P. [(2009) 7  SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356];  Chunduru  Siva  Ram  Krishna v.  Peddi  Ravindra  Babu  [(2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297];   Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1  SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82]; State of Bihar v.  P.P.  Sharma [1992 Supp (1)  SCC 222 :  1992  SCC (Cri)  192 :  AIR 1991 SC 1260];  Lalmuni  Devi v. State of Bihar [(2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001  SCC  (Cri)  275];  M.  Krishnan v.  Vijay  Singh  [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita  v.  State  of  Rajasthan [(2005)  12  SCC  338  :   (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571] and S.M. Datta v. State  of Gujarat [(2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri)   1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201]).

27.16. These are the principles which individually and  preferably  cumulatively  (one  or  more)  be  taken  into  consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary   and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of   the  Code  by  the  High  Court.  Where  the  factual   foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts   should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the  

7Page 7 of 11

Page 8

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

proceedings  even  on  the  premise  that  one  or  two  ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be   satisfied  if  there  is  substantial  compliance  with  the  requirements of the offence.”

12. In Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. &  

Ors.  (Criminal  Appeal  No.2055  of  2014  decided  on  

6.9.2014), it was observed:

“9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal   complaint.   In  the FIR,  the  appellants  have not  been  named and in the criminal complaint they have been   named  without  attributing  any  specific  role  to  them.  The relationship of the appellants with the husband of   the  complainant  is  distant.   In  Kans  Raj vs. State  of  Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207], it was observed:-

“5………A  tendency  has,  however,  developed  for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the  deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths   which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the  case of the prosecution even against the real   culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety   to  seek  conviction  for  maximum people,  the  parents of the deceased have been found to be  making  efforts  for  involving  other  relations   which  ultimately  weaken  the  case  of  the  prosecution even against the real accused as  appears to have happened in the instant case.”

The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning distant   relatives without there being specific material.  Only the  husband, his parents or at best close family members   may be expected to demand dowry or  to  harass  the  wife but not distant relations, unless there is tangible   material  to  support  allegations  made  against  such   distant relations.   Mere naming of  distant  relations is   not enough to summon them in absence of any specific   role and material to support such role.

10. The  parameters  for  quashing  proceedings  in  a  criminal complaint are well known.  If there are triable   issues, the Court is not expected to go into the veracity   of  the rival  versions but where on the face of  it,  the   criminal  proceedings  are  abuse  of  Court’s  process,   

8Page 8 of 11

Page 9

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

quashing jurisdiction can be exercised.  Reference may  be made to K. Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar  and Anr. [(2000) 8 SCC 547],  Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.  vs.  Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC  749],  State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and  Ors.  [(1992)  Suppl  1 SCC 335] and  Asmathunnisa vs.  State of A.P. represented by the Public Prosecutor, High   Court of A.P., Hyderabad and Anr. [(2011) 11 SCC 259].”

13. In the present case, the complaint is as follows:

“Sir, it is submitted that I was married on 18.11.09 with   Sidharath  Parakh  s/o  Manak  Chand  Parak,  r/o  Sarafa   Bazar  in  front  of  Radha  Krishna  Market,  Gwalior   according  to  the  Hindu  rites  and  customs.   In  the   marriage  my  father  had  given  gold  and  silver   ornaments,  cash  amount  and  household  goods   according to his  capacity.   After the marriage when I   went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely by   the  members  of  the  family.   When  on  the  second  occasion I went to my matrimonial, my husband, father- in-law  and  mother-in-law  started  harassing  me  for   brining the dowry and started saying that I should bring   from my father 25-30 tolas of gold and Rs.2,00,000/- in   cash and only then they would keep me in the house   otherwise  not.   On  account  of  this  my husband also   used to beat me and my father-in-law and my mother- in-law used to torture me by giving the taunts.  In this   connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal Oswal,   my  mother  Smt.  Prem  Lata  Oswal,  uncle  Ashok  Rai   Sharma  and  uncle  Ved  Prakash  Mishra  from  time  to   time.  On 2.4.2010 the members of  the family of my  matrimonial home forcibly sent me to the house of my   parents in Ganj Basoda along with my brother Deepak.   They snatched my clothes and ornaments and kept with   them.   Since  then  till  today  my  husband  has  been  harassing me on the telephone and has not come to   take me back.  Being compelled, I have been moving  this application before you.  Sir, it is prayed that action   be taken against husband Sidharath Parakh, my father- in-law Manak Chand Parakh and my mother-in-law Smt.   Indira Parakh for torturing me on account of demanding  the dowry.”

9Page 9 of 11

Page 10

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

14. From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that  

even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made  

out.

15. There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his  

parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to  

leave the matrimonial home.  Even now she continues to be  

separated  from the matrimonial  home as  she apprehends  

lack of security and safety and proper environment in the  

matrimonial home.  The question whether the appellant has  

infact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of  

trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made  

out.   Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial  is not  

permissible.

16. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High  

Court are distinguishable.  In Neelu Chopra, parents of the  

husband were too old.  The husband Rajesh had died and  

main allegations were only against him.  This Court found no  

cogent material against other accused.  In Manoj Mahavir,  

the  appellant  before  this  Court  was  the  brother  of  the  

daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against  

the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier  

1Page 10 of 11

Page 11

Criminal Appeal No….  of 2015 @ SLP (Crl.) No.6437 of 2013

498A case.  This Court found the said case to be absurd.  In  

Geeta Mehrotra, case was against brother and sister of the  

husband.  Divorce had taken place between the parties.  The  

said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down  

any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which  

have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the  

cases therein which are distinguishable.  In the present case  

the factual matrix is different from the said cases.  Applying  

the  settled  principles,  it  cannot  be  held  that  there  is  no  

triable case against the accused.    

17. Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned order passed by the High Court.

……..…………………………….J.     [T.S. THAKUR]

.….………………………………..J.             [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

NEW DELHI MARCH 16, 2015

11Page 11 of 11