LexBHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. versus MONICA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 408 )- ..... A BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. v. MONICA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009) B JULY 27, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ~ c Sections 403, 405, 406, 498A - Matrimonial dispute - Complaint of mental cruelty and non-entrustment of property against husband and in-laws - Summoning order - Quashed by High Court - On appeal, Held: No case under Section 498A made out - No criminal misconduct on the part of the D appellants - However, prima facie a case under Section 406 /PC made out against the appellant No.2 (mother-in-law) - ~ Summoning order passed against appellants except appellant No.2 is set aside - Proceedings can continue only against appellant No.2 that too in respect of Section 406 /PC E only. The present appeal has been filed against the High Court's judgment quashing the summoning order against · the appellants in respect of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A. .. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The allegations relating to the place where the marriage took place has nothing to do with an offence G under Section 498A of the IPC. Allegations that appellant No.2 kicked the respondent with her leg and told her that her mother to be a liar may make out some other offence '" - but not the one punishable under Section 498A. Similarly her allegations that the appellant No.2 poisoned the ears H 408 BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. v. MONICA 409 of her son against the respondent; she gave two used A lady suits of her daughter to the complainant and has been given perpetual sermons to the complainant could not be said to be offences punishable under Section 498A. Even threatening that her sot:i may be divorced for the second time could not bring out the offence under B Section 498A of the IPC. [Para 13] [428-E-F] Noorjahan vs. State rep. by D.S.P, (2008) 11 SCC 55; Sushi/ Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 281; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. vs. Peddi Ravindra C Babu & Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 685; Kailashi Bai vs. Aarti Arya & Anr. 2009 (7) SCALE 304; Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2008 (1) JCC 65; Ramesh & Ors. vs. State of T.N. (2005) 3 SCC 507; Oevendra & Drs. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2009 (7) SCALE 613 and Mahi/a Vinod D Kumari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2008 (10) SCALE 97, referred to. 2. This Court, however, made note of the litigations filed between the parties in great detail. These litigations, E if a holistic view is taken, depict a sad state of affairs, , namely, that the respondent, on the one hand, intends to take all coercive measures to secure the presence of her husband and the appellants in India in various cases filed by her and, on the other hand, she had repeatedly been F making attempts of conciliation. Endeavour/conciliations were made by the Delhi High Court as also this Court at various stages. The High Court, in its order dated 6.10.2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 452 of 2005 categorically held that the marriage has irretrievably G broken down. Be that as !t may, this Court is of the opinion that keeping in view the ingredients of the provisions of Sections 498A of the IPC, no case has been made out against the appellants. (Para 15] (437-C-E] H 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. ,. ... A 3.1. The correspondences exchanged between the spouses or by and between the husband and his in-laws do not disclose any allegation which would amount to ,. criminal misconduct on the part of the appellants. [Para 16) [440-A-B] B 3.2. The only allegation which brings the case within the purview of Section 406 is that appellant No.2 (mother- in-law) had taken all the gifts/cash given by the invitees/ guests. Technically, this allegation would attract the c definition of breach of trust within the meaning of Section 405 of the IPC. Entrustment of some properties and/or dominion over them, if any, therefore, is attributed only against the appellant No.2. Other allegations made against the appellants are general in nature. Entrustment D is said to have been made to the appellants and/or their son. No definite case of entrustment of any property has been made against the appellant No.1. He is only said to have given back to the complainant's parent the entire cloth and jewelry. No demand was made by the respondent. Offering of Rs.25 lakhs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.