BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. versus MONICA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 18-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014) 2 S.C.R. 990 
BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. 
v. 
MONICA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 435-436 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOi AND SHIVA 
KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Complaint filed u/ 
ss.498A, 406 /PC - Quashed on the ground that while no 
offence u/s.498A, /PC was made out against either of the 
appellants, the offence u/s.406, as alleged, was prima facie 
0 made out against the appellant No. 2 alone - Held: The 
complaint should not have been rejected at the threshold -
The facts, as alleged, have to be proved which can only be 
done in the course of a regular trial - Appreciation, even in a 
summary manner, of averments made in a complaint petition 
or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and 
E the facts stated will have to be ·accepted as they appear on - · 
the very face of it - This is the core test that has to be applied 
before summoning the accused - Once the said stage is 
overcome, the facts alleged have to be proved by the 
complainant/prosecution on the basis of legal evidence in 
F order to establish the penal liability of the person charged with 
the offence - In the instant case, in the face of the avennents 
made in complaint petition regarding mental cruelty for 
bringing dowry and retention of cash and other gifts received 
by the respondent-complainant at the time of her marriage by 
G the accused-appellant No. 2, it cannot be said that the 
complaint filed by respondent was shom of the necessary 
allegations to prima facie sustain the case of commission of 
the offence u/s.498A and s.406- Therefore, complaint petition 
pending in the trial court cannot be interdicted but has to be 
H 
990 
BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR. v. MONICA & ORS. 991 
finally concluded by the trial court - Trial court directed to 
A ' 
complete trial expeditiously. 
s. 125 - Maintenance granted u/s. 125 by trial court - Writ 
petition u/Article 32 for service of notice on the husband 
(respondent)-and for payment of the arrears of maintenance 
9 
as also the current monthly maintenance - Maintainability of 
- Held: Order of maintenance u/s. 125 can be executed by 
following the provisions of sub-section (3) of s. 125 - When the 
enforcement and execution of an order passed under a 
statute is contemplated by the statute itself, normally, an 
C 
aggrieved litigant has to take recourse to the remedy provided 
under the statute - In fact, petitioner wife has already initiated 
a proceeding for execution of the order of maintenance 
granted in her favour - The fact that the husband against 
whom the order of maintenance is required to be enforced 
lives outside the territory of India cannot be a reasonable 
D 
basis for invoking the extraordinary remedy under Article 32 
of the Constitution inasmuch as the provisions of the Code 
i.e. s.105 makes elaborate provisions for service of summons 
in case the person summoned by the court resides outside 
__ the territory of India - In view of the remedy that is available 
E 
to the petitioner under the Cr.P.C. and having regard to the 
fact that resort to such remedy has already been made, 
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution in facts of the 
present case cannot be invoked - Instead, the Family Court 
is directed to pass appropriate final orders as expeditiously 
F 
as possible - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32. 
The respondent had filed a complaint under sections 
498, 406 IPC against the appellants-parents-in-law and 
subsequently also impleaded-husband-respondent no.2. 
G 
The trial court took cognizance of offence and issued 
summons. The appellants sought quashing of complaint 
before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the 
application. The appellants filed appeals, which were 
disposed of by the Supreme Court holding that while no 
H 
992 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 
A offence under Section 498A, IPC was made out against 
either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, 
as alleged, was prima facie made out against the 
appellant No. 2 alone. Against this, the respondent filed. 
the review petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the 
B National Commission for Women as well as respondent 
herself filed Curative Petitions which were allowed by the 
Supreme C9urt on 14.03.2013. In the said order, it was 
observed that as far as the question regarding making out 
of a case under Section 498A l.P .C. was concerned, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.