Family members of a man should not be implicated in a dowry Cases
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO. 1674 OF 2012
(Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10547/2010)
Geeta
Mehrotra & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
State
of U.P. & Anr. . Respondents
J U D
G M E N T
GYAN
SUDHA MISRA, J.
1.
This appeal by special leave in which we granted leave has been filed by the
appellants against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Miscellaneous Application No.22714/2007 whereby
the High Court had been pleased to dispose of the application moved by the
appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Magistrate
taking cognizance against the appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC
read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an observation that the
question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts. It was, therefore,
left open to the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the
proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court
however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the
authorities not to issue coercive process against the appellants until disposal
of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the
trial court to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a
period of two months from the date of moving the application. The application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was thus disposed of by the High Court.
2.
The appellants in spite of the liberty granted to them to move the trial court,
have filed this appeal for quashing the proceedings which had been initiated on
the basis of a case lodged by the respondent No.2 Smt. Shipra Mehrotra (earlier
known as Shipra Seth) against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law. This appeal has been preferred by the
sister-in- law, who is appellant No.1 and brother-in-law of the complainant,
who is appellant No.2.
3.
The case emerges out of the first information report lodged by respondent No.2
Smt. Shipra Mehrotra under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act bearing F.I.R.No. 52/2004. The F.I.R. was
registered at Mahila Thana Daraganj, Allahabad wherein the complainant alleged
that she was married to Shyamji Mehrotra s/o Balbir Saran who was living at
Eros Garden, Charmswood Village, Faridabad, Suraj Kund Road at Faridabad
Haryana as per the Hindu marriage rites and customs. Prior to marriage the
complainant and her family members were told by Shyamji Mehrotra and his elder
brother Ramji Mehrotra who is appellant No.2 herein and their mother Smt. Kamla
Mehrotra and her sister Geeta Mehrotra who is appellant No.1 herein that
Shyamji is employed as a Team Leader in a top I.T. Company in Chennai and is
getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month. After negotiation between the parents
of the complainant and the accused parties, the marriage of the complainant
Shipra Seth (later Shipra Mehrotra) and Shyamji Mehrotra was performed after
which the respondent-complainant left for the house of her in- laws.
4. It
was stated that the atmosphere in the house was peaceful for sometime but soon
after the wedding, when all the relatives left, the maid who cooked meals was
first of all paid-off by the aforesaid four persons who then told the
complainant that from now onwards, the complainant will have to prepare food
for the family. In addition, the above mentioned people started taunting and
scolding her on trivial issues. The complainant also came to know that Shyamji
was not employed anywhere and always stayed in the house. Shyamji gradually
took away all the money which the complainant had with her and then told her
that her father had not given dowry properly, therefore, she should get Rupees
five lakhs from her father in order to enable him to start business, because he
was not getting any job. When the complainant clearly declined and stated that
she will not ask her parents for money, Shyamji, on instigation of other
accused-family members, started beating her occasionally. To escape every day
torture and financial status of the family, the complainant took up a job in a
Call Centre at Convergys on 17.2.2003 where the complainant had to do night
shifts due to which she used to come back home at around 3 a.m. in the morning.
Just on her return from work, the household people started playing bhajan
cassettes after which she had to getup at 7’o clock in the morning to prepare
and serve food to all the members in the family. Often on falling asleep in the
morning, Shyamji, Kamla Devi and Geeta Mehrotra tortured the complainant every
day mentally and physically. Ramji Mehrotra often provoked the other three
family members to torture and often used to make the complainant feel sad by
making inappropriate statements about the complainant and her parents. Her
husband Shyamji also took away the salary from the complainant.
5.
After persistent efforts, Shyamji finally got a job in Chennai and he went to
Chennai for the job in May, 2003. But, it is alleged that there was no change
in his behaviour even after going to Chennai. The complainant often called him
on phone to talk to him but he always did irrelevant conversation. He never
spoke properly with the complainant whenever he visited home and often used to
hurl filthy abuses. The complainant states that she often wept and tolerated
the tortures of the accused persons for a long time but did not complain to her
family members, as that would have made them feel sad. At last, when the
complainant realized that even her life was in danger, she was compelled to
tell everything to her father on phone who was very upset on hearing her woes.
On 15.7.2003 complainant heard some conversation of her mother-in-law and
sister-in-law from which it appeared to her that they want to kill the
complainant in the night only. Thereupon the complainant apprised her father of
the situation on phone to which her father replied that he will call back her
father-in-law and she should go with him immediately and he will come in the
morning. The father-in-law Satish Dhawan and his wife who were living in NOIDA
thereafter came in the night and somehow took the complainant to their home who
also came to know of everything. The complainant’s father and brother later
went to her matrimonial home on 16.7.2003. On seeing her father and brother,
Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra started speaking loudly and started saying
that Shyamji would be coming by the evening and so he should come in the
evening for talking to them. Her father and brother then went away from there.
That very day, her husband Shyamji and brother-in-law Ramji also reached home.
On reaching there, Shyamji abused her on phone and told her to send her father.
6.
When father and brother of the complainant went home in the evening, they were
also insulted by all the four and video camera and tape were played and in the
end they were told that they should leave from here. Insulted, they came back
from there and then came back to Allahabad with the complainant. For many days
the complainant and her family members hoped that the situation would improve
if the matter was resolved. Many times other people tried to persuade the in –
laws but to no avail. Her brother went to their house to talk to her in – laws
but it came to his knowledge that the in – laws had changed their house. After
much effort, they came to know that the father-in- law and mother-in-law
started living at B-39, Brahma cooperative group housing society, block 7,
sector-7, Dwarka, Delhi. On 19.09.04 evening, her father talked to Kamla
Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra regarding the complainant using bad words and it
was said that if her daughter came there she will be kicked out. After some
time Shyamji rang up at complainant’s home but on hearing the complainant’s
voice, he told her abusively that now she should not come his way and she
should tell her father not to phone him in future. At approximately 10:30 pm in
the night Ramji’s phone came to the complainant’s home. He used bad words while
talking to her father and in the end said that he had got papers prepared in
his defence and he may do whatever he could but if he could afford to give
Rs.10 lakhs then it should be conveyed after which he will reconsider the matter.
If the girl was sent to his place without money, then even her dead body will
not be found.
7. On
hearing these talks of the accused, the complainant believed that her in-laws
will not let the complainant enter their home without taking ten lakhs and if
the complainant went there on her own, she will not be safe. Hence, she lodged
the report wherein she prayed that the SHO Daraganj should be ordered to do the
needful after registering the case against the accused Shyam Mehrotra, Ramji
Mehrotra, Kamla Mehrotra and Geeta Mehrotra. Thus, in substance, the
complainant related the bickering at her matrimonial home which made her life
miserable in several ways and compelled her to leave her in- law’s place in
order to live with her father where she lodged a police case as stated
hereinbefore.
8. On
the basis of the complaint, the investigating authorities at P.S. Daraganj,
Allahabad started investigation of the case and thereafter the police submitted
chargesheet against the appellants and other family members of the
complainant’s husband.
9.
Hence, the appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband
filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet and
the entire proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.IV, Allahabad, inter- alia, on the ground that FIR has been lodged
with mala fide intentions to harass the appellants and that no case was made
out against the appellants as well as other family members. But the principal
ground of challenge to the FIR was that the incident although was alleged to
have taken place at Faridabad and the investigation should have been done there
only, the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with the father of
the complainant, got the investigating officer to record the statements by
visiting Ghaziabad which was beyond his territorial jurisdiction and cannot be
construed as legal and proper investigation. It was also alleged that the
father of the complainant got the arrest warrant issued through George Town
Police Station, Allahabad, in spite of the cause of action having arisen at
Allahabad.
10.
This appeal has been preferred by Kumari Geeta Mehrotra i.e. the sister of the
complainant’s husband and Ramji Mehrotra i.e. the elder brother of the
complainant’s husband assailing the order of the High Court and it was
submitted that the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that the
complainant who had already obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, is pursuing
the present case through her father with the sole purpose to unnecessarily
harass the appellants to extract money from them as all efforts of mediation
had failed.
11.
However, the grounds of challenge before this Court to the order of the High
Court, inter alia is that the High Court had failed to appreciate that the
investigation had been done by the authority without following due process of
law which also lacked territorial jurisdiction. The relevant documents/parcha
diary for deciding the territorial jurisdiction had been overlooked as the FIR
has been lodged at Allahabad although the cause of action of the entire
incident is alleged to have taken place at Faridabad (Haryana). It was,
therefore, submitted that the investigating authorities of the Allahabad have
traversed beyond the territorial limits which is clearly an abuse of the
process of law and the High Court has failed to exercise its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case and
allowed the proceedings to go on before the trial court although it had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.
12.
It was further averred that the High Court had failed to examine the facts of
the FIR to see whether the facts stated in the FIR constitute any prima facie
case making out an offence against the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the
complainant and whether there was at all any material to constitute an offence
against the appellants and their family members. Attention of this Court was
further invited to the contradictions in the statement of the complainant and
her father which indicate material contradictions indicating that the
complainant and her father have concocted the story to implicate the appellants
as well as all their family members in a criminal case merely with a mala fide
intention to settle her scores and extract money from the family of her
ex-husband Shyamji Mehrotra and his family members.
13.
On a perusal of the complaint and other materials on record as also analysis of
the arguments advanced by the contesting parties in the light of the settled
principles of law reflected in a catena of decisions, it is apparent that the
High Court has not applied its mind on the question as to whether the case was
fit to be quashed against the appellants and has merely disposed of the petition
granting liberty to the appellants to move the trial court and raise
contentions on the ground as to whether it has territorial jurisdiction to
continue with the trial in the light of the averment that no part of the cause
of action had arisen at Allahabad and the entire incident even as per the FIR
had taken place at Faridabad.
14.
The High Court further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this
case, the complainant-respondent No.2 has obtained an ex-parte decree of
divorce against her husband Shyamji Mehrotra and the High Court failed to apply
its mind whether any case could be held to have been made out against Kumari
Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra, who are the unmarried sister and elder
brother of the complainant’s ex-husband. Facts of the FIR even as it stands
indicate that although a prima facie case against the husband Shyamji Mehrotra
and some other accused persons may or may not be constituted, it surely appears
to be a case where no ingredients making out a case against the unmarried
sister of the accused Shyamji Mehrotra and his brother Ramji Mehrotra appear to
be existing for even when the complainant came to her in-law’s house after her
wedding, she has alleged physical and mental torture by stating in general that
she had been ordered to do household activities of cooking meals for the whole
family. But there appears to be no specific allegation against the sister and
brother of the complainant’s husband as to how they could be implicated into
the mutual bickering between the complainant and her husband Shyamji Mehrotra
including his parents.
15.
Under the facts and circumstance of similar nature in the case of Ramesh
vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported
in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735 at 738 allegations were made in a complaint against
the husband, the in-laws, husband’s brother and sister who were all the
petitioners before the High Court wherein after registration of the F.I.R. and
investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police in the
court of Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. Thereupon, the learned magistrate
took cognizance of the offence and issued warrants against the appellants on
13.2.2002. Four of the accused-appellants were arrested and released on bail by
the magistrate at Mumbai. The appellants had filed petition under Section 482,
Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the proceedings in complaint
case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Trichy. The High Court by the
impugned order dismissed the petition observing that the grounds raised by the
petitioners were all subject matters to be heard by the trial court for better
appreciation after conducting full trial as the High Court was of the view that
it was only desirable to dismiss the criminal original petition and the same
was also dismissed. However, the High Court had directed the Magistrate to
dispense with the personal attendance of the appellants.
16.
Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the special leave petition was filed in this Court giving
rise to the appeals therein where threefold contentions were raised viz., (i)
that the allegations are frivolous and without any basis; (ii) even according
to the FIR, no incriminating acts were done within the jurisdiction of Trichy
Police Station and the court at Trichy and, therefore, the learned magistrate
lacked territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and (iii)
taking cognizance of the alleged offence at that stage was barred under Section
468(1) Cr.P.C. as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under
Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. Apart from the subsequent two contentions, it was urged
that the allegations under the FIR do not make out any offence of which
cognizance could be taken.
17.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold
that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant
appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the
husband’s relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the
charge sheet furnished the legal basis for the magistrate to take cognizance of
the offences alleged against the appellants. The learned Judges were pleased to
hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the contents of the charge
sheet, none of the alleged offences under Section 498 A, 406 and Section 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the
complainant’s husband who was undisputedly not living with the family of the
complainant’s husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to
hold that the High Court ought not to have relegated the sister in law to the
ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were
quashed and the appeal was allowed.
18.
In so far as the plea of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it is no doubt
true that the High Court was correct to the extent that the question of
territorial jurisdiction could be decided by the trial court itself. But this
ground was just one of the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against
the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein it was also alleged that no
prima facie case was made out against the appellants for initiating the
proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act and other provisions of the IPC.
The High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in so far as the
consideration of the case of the appellants are concerned, who are only brother
and sister of the complainant’s husband and are not alleged even by the
complainant to have demanded dowry from her. The High Court, therefore, ought
to have considered that even if the trial court at Allahabad had the
jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the
trial against the brother and sister of the husband was fit to be continued and
whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
19.
Coming to the facts of this case, when the contents of the FIR is perused, it
is apparent that there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta Mehrotra and
Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference of their names who have been included in
the FIR but mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a
matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter
would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out
of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of
the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute
specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
20.
It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this
Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao
vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court
should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein
all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was
quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely
agree that:
“there
has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a
sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle
down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly
erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in
which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who
could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on
their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so
that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where
it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.”
The
view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage
such disputes.
21.
In yet another case reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the matter of B.S. Joshi
& Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. it was observed that there
is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XXA containing Section 498A
in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband
or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punish
the husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her
relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. But if the proceedings are
initiated by the wife under Section 498A against the husband and his relatives
and subsequently she has settled her disputes with her husband and his
relatives and the wife and husband agreed for mutual divorce, refusal to
exercise inherent powers by the High Court would not be proper as it would
prevent woman from settling earlier. Thus for the purpose of securing the ends
of justice quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be
a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It would however be a different
matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to
exercise or not to exercise such a power.
22.
In the instant matter, when the complainant and her husband are divorced as the
complainant-wife secured an ex-parte decree of divorce, the same could have
weighed with the High Court to consider whether proceeding initiated prior to
the divorce decree was fit to be pursued in spite of absence of specific
allegations at least against the brother and sister of the complainant’s
husband and whether continuing with this proceeding could not have amounted to
abuse of the process of the court. The High Court, however, seems not to have
examined these aspects carefully and have thus side- tracked all these
considerations merely on the ground that the territorial jurisdiction could be
raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial.
23.
In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was just one of
the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the other grounds and,
therefore, the High Court should have examined whether the prosecution case was
fit to be quashed on other grounds or not. At this stage, the question also
crops up whether the matter is fit to be remanded to the High Court to consider
all these aspects. But in matters arising out of a criminal case, fresh
consideration by remanding the same would further result into a protracted and
vexatious proceeding which is unwarranted as was held by this Court in the case
of Ramesh
vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra)
that such a course of remand would be unnecessary and inexpedient as there was
no need to prolong the controversy. The facts in this matter on this aspect was
although somewhat different since the complainant had lodged the complaint
after seven years of delay, yet in the instant matter the factual position
remains that the complaint as it stands lacks ingredients constituting the
offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the
appellants who are sister and brother of the complainant’s husband and their
involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of
their names. Hence, it cannot be overlooked that it would be total abuse of the
process of law if we were to remand the matter to the High Court to consider
whether there were still any material to hold that the trial should proceed
against them in spite of absence of prima facie material constituting the
offence alleged against them.
24.
However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegation of overt act
indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a
given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasize by
highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific
allegation against accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter
arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and
judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the
trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would
persuade the court to take cognisance of the offence alleged against the
relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in
physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well settled
principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not
disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing
the proceedings preventing the abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the
courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing
specially in cases of matrimonial dispute whether the FIR in fact discloses
commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR
prima facie discloses a case of over-implication by involving the entire family
of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her
scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering
while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
25.
In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal
accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings
against them, inter-alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as
also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections
498A,/323/504/506 including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was
the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie
material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the
trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems
to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on
the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the
appellants to approach the trial court.
26.
The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have missed that assuming
the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided
whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed
to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of
inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from
the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects,
this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to
the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants
to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose
specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband
except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to
go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter
all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main
accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending
against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence
under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act.
27.
We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings
initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR
does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any
offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation
that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the
complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against
them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when
they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we
are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these
appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court
shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.
……………………………J
(T.S.
Thakur)
……………………………J
(Gyan
Sudha Misra)
New
Delhi,
October
17, 2012
-----------------------