LexTARAMANI PARAKH versus STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 3 S.C.R. 672 TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2015) MARCH 16, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Criminal C proceedings filed against husband ulss. 498-A/34, /PC - High Court quashed the proceedings - On appeal, held: The question whether respondent no. 2-husband intact harassed and treated appellant-wife with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case was made out - D Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial, therefore, not permissible. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. If the allegations are absurd or do not made E 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 F 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. From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved G. no case is made out. 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 H 672 I- TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P. 673 and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial A 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. [Paras 10, 14 and 15] [676-C-E; 684-C-E] B Neelu Chopra and Anr. v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184; Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Moddar and Anr. (2010) 10 SCC 673: 2010 (12) SCR 289; Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2012) C 10 SCC 741: 2012 (9) SCR 641;Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Anr. (2012) 8 SCC 460; Kai/ash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. vs. State of U.P & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 decided on 6.9.2014- referred to. Case law reference (2009) 10 sec 184 Referred to. Para 6 2010 (12) SCR 289 Referred to. Para 6 2012 (9) SCR 641 Referred to. Para 6 (2012) 8 sec 460 Referred to. Para 10 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2015. D E F From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2013 of the G High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Misc. Cr. Case No. 9759/2012. PradeepAggarwal, Lal Pratap Singh, Umesh Pratap Singh, Ruchi Kohli for the Appellant. H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A Aakanshka Tiwari, M. S. Mangla, Shiv Sagar Tiwari for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B 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 C Case No.9759 of2012. 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 0 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 E No.163/12 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior.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 F ·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 G filed a divorce petition on 26th April, 2011 which was pending. H It was thereafter that the appellant filed the impugned complaint dated 19th May, 2011 which contained false allegations. TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P. 675 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 5. The petition was contes
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.