VIJETA GAJRA versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 1150 
VIJETA GAJRA 
v. 
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1182-84 of 2010) 
JULY 08, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
C 
ss.498A, 406 - FIR lodged against appellant under 
s.498A and s.406 - Quashing of FIR sought on the ground 
that appellant was not related to the family of complainant or 
her husband - Held: Appellant should not be tried for offence 
under s.498A - Reference to the word 'relative' in s.498A is 
0 limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage 
- However, FIR in respect of s.406 is not quashed in view of 
the allegations made - Protection given to the appellant that 
no coercive steps be taken against her - Crime against 
Women. 
E 
F 
The complainant filed an FIR against the appellant 
under Sections 498A and 406 IPC alleging demand of 
dowry and criminal breach of trust. The FIR also stated 
about the illicit relations between the appellant and the 
husband of complainant. 
Appellant filed petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing 
the FIR, which was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that she 
G did not belong to the family of the complainant or her 
husband or any of their relatives and that all the 
allegations against her were palpably wrong. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
H 
1150 
VIJETA GAJRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 
1151 
'' 
. 
' 
-
' . 
·_ 
·.,I'.·_-.: 
HELD: 1. Reference to the word 'relative' in Section · A 
498A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or 
the relations by marriage. There is no question of 
prosecution of appellant under Section 498A, IPC. 
Therefore, the FIR insofar as it concerned Section 498A, 
IPC, would be of no consequence and the appellant B 
should not be tried for the offence under Section 498A, 
IPC. [Paras 7, 8] [1156-A-C; G-H] 
2. There can be no doubt that the allegations made 
against the appellant were extremely wild and disgusting. 
However, how far those allegations could be used to C 
meet the requirements for the offence under. S~c;:tion 406, 
IPC is a moot question. Whatever the form :lri.wllich the 
allegations under Section 406, IPC were made; the fact 
of the matter is that ther.e is ari FIR and the Court 
concerned had taken cognizance thereof. Under these D 
circumstances, the interest of the appellant has to be 
protected by directing that she should not be required to 
attend the proceedings unless specifically directed by 
the Court to do so and that too in the case of extreme 
necessity. Similarly, no coercive step shall be taken 
E 
against her. She should be granted bail by the Court 
trying the case if it decides to try the offence by framing 
the charge. The Court should be careful while 
considering the framing of charge. Thus, the ~ppellant 
should not be tried for offence under Section 49~A, IPC; 
F 
However, the FIR is not quashed altogether in vievv ofthe 
allegations made under Section 406, IPC with the 
protection that has been granted fo the appellant. [Paras 
10,11] [1157-D-G] 
U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector of Police & Anr. (2009) G 
6 sec 757; T. Ashok Pai v. CIT (2007) 7 sec 162; 
Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P. (2007) 15 SCC 
369, relied on. 
H 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 7 S.C.R 
A 
R. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 
B 
3rd Edition, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2009) 6 sec 757 
(2001) 1 sec 162 
(2001) 15 sec 369 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
Para 7 
Para 7 
Para 7 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
C No. 1182-84 of 2010. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 8.5.2009 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1416 of 2008 
and Crl. M.A. Nos. 13113 of 2008 and 2665 of 2009. 
D 
U.U. Lalit, K.V. Viswananthan, Sanjeev Kumar, Vishal 
Gupta Kumar Mihir, Khaitan & Co., for the Appellant. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, J.S. Attri, Vikram Choudhary, Anand 
Mishra, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Sandhu, Anil Katiyar for the 
E Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the 
F High Court whereby the petition filed by her was dismissed. The 
said petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 
India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
for quashing the FIR No. 138/08 dated 07.08.2008 for offences 
under Section 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code in the 
G Chitranjan Par
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.