SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 30 January, 2020

Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 1


Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 30.1.2020

Manjit Kaur
State of Punjab and others


Present:- Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4–complainant.


1. The petitioner by way of instant petition under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to have FIR No. 33 dated 26.3.2014

under Section 498A IPC registered at Police Station Guraya, Jalandhar, and

all subsequent proceedings arising thereform quashed.

2. In brief, the facts are that brother of the petitioner solemnized

marriage with respondent No.4, namely Reena Kumari in the year 2005, out

of which wedlock a male child was born. In the year 2014, the complainant

got registered the aforesaid FIR alleging that her husband had gone to

Greece and for the past three years has been living there. After having left,

he did not give her any expenses with a result all her expenses had been met

by her parents. In the said FIR, there are also allegations that the accused,

1 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 2

namely, Shinder Pal (husband), Manjit Kaur (sister-in-law, petitioner

herein), Gagandeep Gona, Kamaljit Kaur, Rachna, Surinder Kaur (sister-in-

law), Rakesh Kumar, Ashwani, Rahul, Ajay sons of Satpal, Dharampal and

Rajpal, had been harassing the complainant immediately after her marriage,

while submitting that she wanted to reside with her husband in her

matrimonial home. Pursuant to the said FIR, the matter was investigated

and it was recommended that a case be registered under Section 498-A

against Shinder Pal (husband), Manjit Kaur and Surender Kaur (sisters-in-

law). Aggrieved against the registration of the FIR, the instant petition has

been filed by Manjit Kaur-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues

that the FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and a reading of

the same would show that the allegations made therein are vague without

disclosing the true and correct facts. It is submitted that the petitioner was

married 34 years ago and was living with her husband in Greece and,

therefore, there was no occasion for her to interfere in the daily matrimonial

life or to raise a demand of dowry and therefore, prays for quashing of the

FIR instituted against her.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant would argue that the petitioner is none other than the sister-in-

law of the complainant and she was amongst other who had harassed the

complainant for brining inadequate dowry and, therefore, the question of

quashing of the FIR would not arise.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

assistance have gone through the pleadings of the parties.

2 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 3

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein is a resident of

Greece and, therefore, would not be interfering in the daily matrimonial life

of the complainant. Even otherwise a reading of the FIR would show that no

specific allegations have been made regarding demand of dowry, while at

the same time it could clearly be borne out that her sole grouse is against her

husband who had gone abroad and left her without taking care of her

financially. The allegations of harassment and beatings are general without

details of the date or place where she was subjected to such atrocities in her

matrimonial home. At the same time, it is stated in the FIR that she wants to

live with her husband in her matrimonial home and sought help to bring her

husband back from abroad or she be taken by her husband along with him or

her expenses to be met. It is relevant to note that in the complaint, the

complainant made allegations of harassment and torture against as many as

12 persons and after investigation, the police registered the FIR qua the

three persons mentioned above. The petitioner is married sister-in-law of the

complainant and has been residing in Greece for the last 34 years and as

such the chances of her involvement in the matrimonial affair of the

complainant are very bleak. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in several cases that there has now been an increasing tendency of roping in

every member of the family by registering a case which arises out of the

matrimonial dispute and this practice has been deprecated time and again. In

a case reported as 2003 (2) RCR (Crl.) 888 B.S. Joshi and others Versus

State of Haryana and another, it was observed that the object of

introducing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the

torture of a woman at the hands of her husband or relatives. The Hon’ble

3 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 4

Apex Court went on to hold that if the FIR, as it stands, does not disclose

specific allegations against the accused, more so against the co-accused,

specially in a matter arising out of the matrimonial bickering, it would be a

clear abuse of process of law and judicial process to mechanically send the

named accused in the FIR to undergo trial. It was further held that it is a

well settled principle that in case an FIR does not disclose the commission

of offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. In

Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [1977] 4 SCC 551 a three-Judge

Bench of Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:

“… In case the impugned order clearly brings out a situation
which is an abuse of the process of the Court, or for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High
Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in
Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent
power by the High Court. Such cases would necessarily be few
and far between. One such case would be the desirability of the
quashing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally,
vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. The present case
would undoubtedly fall for exercise of the power of the High
Court in accordance with Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even
assuming, that the invoking of the revisional power of the High
Court is impermissible.”

7. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao

Chandrojirao Angre 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 565 the Hon’ble Apex Court

observed in para No. 7 as under:

“7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at
the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by
the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court

4 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 5

to take into consideration any special features which appear in
a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique
purpose and where in the opinion of the Court, chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage.”

8. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.

1991 (1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 383 Hon’ble the Apex Court, in the backdrop of

interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by

the Supreme Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the

extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., gave the following categories of

cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to

prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of


(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations made in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2)
of the Code.

5 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 6

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155
(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal

9. There are a catena of judgments, one such case being Preeti

Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 2010 (4) RCR

(Crl.) 45 where it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is

unfortunate tendency to rope in all family members in the matrimonial

dispute. Even in the instant case herein, a bare reading of the FIR, as such,

does not disclose commission of offence under Sections 498-A/406 IPC, as

there are no specific allegations of either demand or entrustment of dowry

6 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::
Crl. Misc. M- 12257 of 2017 7

qua the petitioners. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered opinion that continuing of proceedings

against the petitioners in FIR would tantamount to an abuse of process of

court and therefore, it is a fit case warranting interference under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 33 dated

26.3.2014 under Section 498A IPC registered at Police Station Guraya,

Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua are

quashed qua the petitioner.

prem JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

7 of 7
09-02-2020 15:44:06 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation