Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case for Lack of Prima Facie Case. Allegations in Complaint Did Not Constitute Any Offence Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act Against the Appellants.

  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the High Court's order declining to quash a complaint filed by a wife against her in-laws. The respondent No.2 was married to Mohammad Pervez in 2000. The appellants are the mother and brothers of the husband. The wife filed a complaint case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellants and her husband. The appellants sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC, but the High Court rejected their application. The Supreme Court, after perusing the complaint, found that the allegations against the appellants did not make out a prima facie case. The Court held that there was no justification to proceed against them and quashed the complaint insofar as it related to the appellants. However, the Court clarified that the complaint against the husband would be decided on its merits by the Magistrate uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Lack of Prima Facie Case - Complaint filed by wife against husband and in-laws under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act - Supreme Court found that averments in complaint did not constitute any case against the appellants (brothers and mother of husband) - Held that there was no justification to proceed against them and quashed the complaint qua appellants (Paras 10-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and summoning order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants quashed. Complaint against husband Mohammad Pervez to be decided on merits by the Magistrate uninfluenced by observations.

Law Points

  • Section 482 CrPC
  • Quashing of complaint
  • No prima facie case
  • Section 498A IPC
  • Section 323 IPC
  • Section 504 IPC
  • Section 506 IPC
  • Section 3/4 DP Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (4) 75

Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8074 of 2018)

2019-04-05

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari

Mr. Amit Pawan (for appellants), Mr. Vinod Diwakar (for respondent No.1)

Tabrez Khan @ Guddu & Ors.

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against High Court order refusing to quash complaint under Section 482 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought quashing of Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 and summoning order dated 10.03.2017

Filing Reason

Appellants felt aggrieved by the summons issued in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act

Previous Decisions

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad declined to quash the complaint and summoning order vide order dated 06.02.2018 in Application No.3514 of 2018

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the complaint and summoning order.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case against them. Respondent No.1 (State) supported the High Court's order; respondent No.2 did not appear.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the averments in a complaint do not constitute any prima facie case against the accused, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC should quash the complaint to prevent abuse of process of court.

Judgment Excerpts

we do not find any justification to proceed against the appellants. the facts stated against the appellants in the complaint do not constitute any case as alleged against any of them.

Procedural History

Respondent No.2 filed Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 before ACJM, Court No.8, Varanasi. Summoning order dated 10.03.2017 was passed. Appellants filed Application No.3514 of 2018 under Section 482 CrPC before Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 06.02.2018. Appellants then filed SLP before Supreme Court, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.602 of 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 323, 504, 506
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against In-Laws in Dowry Harassment Case for Lack of Prima Facie Case. Allegations in Complaint Did Not Constitute Any Offence Under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 DP Act Against the Appellants.
Related Judgement
High Court Dismissal of Petitions in Tenancy Dispute Over Sangli Municipal Land. Bombay High Court rejects petitions challenging tenancy rights and land development in Sangli under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.