LexGEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.• [2012] 9 S.C.R. 641 GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1674 of 2012) OCTOBER 17, 2012 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A/323!504!506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.314 - Matrimonial dispute - Quashing A B of criminal proceedings - Duty of the Court - Complaint by wife C against husband and in-laws - Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings against unmarried sister-in-law and elder brother- in-law i.e. the appellants - Held: The courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters of quashing specially in cases of matrimonial dispute - Mere casual reference of D 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 - On facts, the FIR did not disclose specific allegation against the appellants except casual reference of their names - In view thereof, E criminal proceedings quashed insofar as they were concerned. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Petition under - Manner of disposal - Propriety - Matrimonial dispute ~Complaint by wife - Prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings against unmarried sister-in-law and elder brother- F in-law i.e. the appellants inter alia on grounds of malafide intention on the part of complainant-wife and also lack of territorial jurisdiction - High Court disposed of petition uls. 482 CrPC observing that the question of territorial jurisdiction could not be properly decided by it for want of adequate facts, G and permitting the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the proceedings on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Held: The plea of territorial jurisdiction was just 641 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A one of the grounds raised to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants u/s. 482 CrPC - The High Court, therefore, ought to have considered that even if the trial court had the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the question still remained as to whether the trial against the appellants was fit to be s continued and whether that would amount to abuse of the process of the court - It is apparent that the High Court had not applied its mind on that question - It further overlooked the fact that during the pendency of this case, the complainant- wife had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce against her c husband - 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 appellants - High Court did not examine these aspects carefully and side-tracked all 0 these considerations merely on the ground that the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction could be raised only before the magistrate conducting the trial. Remand - Practice & Procedure - Matrimonial dispute - Criminal proceedings initiated by wife against husband and E in-laws - Petition by sister-in-law and brother-in-law i.e. the appellants for quashing of proceedings - Disposed of, by High Court - Appeal before Supreme Court - Question as to whether the matter merited fresh consideration by the High Court- Held: Respondent no.2-wife had lodged the complaint F after seven years of delay, and yet the complaint lacked ingredients constituting the alleged offences against the appellants and their involvement in the whole incident appears only by way of a casual inclusion of their names - Hence, on facts, it would be total abuse of the process of law G if the matter is remanded 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 - Matter adjudicated by Supreme Court itself - Criminal proceedings H quashed insofar as the appellants were concerned - Penal GEETA MEHROTRA & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & 643 ANR. Code, 1860 - ss. 498Al323!504!506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss.314. Respondent no.2 lodged FIR at Allahabad under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that there was bickering at her matrimonial home at Faridabad, Haryana which made her life miserable and compelled her to leave it to live with her father at Allahabad. On the basis of the complaint, police s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.