PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHERversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER

                       [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1168

A                 PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER
                                v.
              STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2010)
                        AUGUST 13, 2010
B
         [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. PANICKER
                 RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c
        s. 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Exercise of -
   Criminal complaint u!s. 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B and
   ss. 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act against immediate relatives of
   husband - Issuance of summons - Challenge to, by
o complainant's-married sister-in-law and brother-in-law
   (appellants) - High Court dismissing the petition - On appeal,
   held: There were no specific a/legations against appellants
 · in the complaint nor any role was ascribed to them by
   witnesses - Said relatives were living in different cities and
E never visited or rarely visited the complainant's place - Their
   implication in the complaint was meant to harass and
   humiliate them - Permitting the complainant to pursue the
   complaint would be an abuse of the process of law - In the
   interest of justice, complaint against appellants is quashed -
   Order of High Court is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
F 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
   - ss. 3 and 4.
        Inherent powers of courts' - Scope and ambit of -
    Explained.
G
         Legislation: Increase in criminal complaints u/s. 498-A
    /PC - Large number of complaints u/s. 498-A not bonafide,
    but filed with oblique motive - Need for legislature to take a


H                               1168
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1169
                    ANR.

serious re-look of the entire provision and make suitable        A
changes in the existing law.

     Ethics: Legal ethics - Increase in criminal complaints u/
s. 498-A !PC - Duty of advocates - Held: Advocates must
maintain noble traditions of the profession - They must
                                                                  8
ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society
remains intact - They should treat every complaint uls. 498A
as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour
to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that
human problem.
                                                                 c
     Respondent no. 2 was married to 'K'. She filed a
criminal complaint under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323
and 120-8 of the Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against her husband,
father-in-law, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law and D
married sister-in-law. The Judicial Magistrate took
cognizance and issued summons against the appellants,
namely, the married sister-in-law and the unmarried
brother-in-law. The appellants challenged the order of
summoning on the ground that there was no specific E
allegation in the entire complaint against them; that they
had been falsely implicated in the criminal case since they
had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided.
The High Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, the F
appellants filed the instant appeal.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 Every High Court has inherent powers to
act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, G
for the administration of which alone it exists, or to
prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power
under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: to give effect
to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the
                                                            H
    1170   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A process of court, and to otherwise secure the ends of
  justice. [Para 15] [1178-D-E]

       1.2 The powers possessed by the High Court u/s.
  482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the
  powers requires great caution in its exercise. The court
8
  must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
  power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
  should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
  but court's failing to use the power for advancement of
  justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court
C should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision
  in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy;
  more so, when the evidence was noi. collected and
  produced before the court and the issues involved,
  whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they
D cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
  material. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard
  to cases in which the High Court would exercise its extra-
  ordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any
  stage. [Para 17] [1179-C-E]
E
       R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State
  of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors.(1977) 2 SCC 699;
  Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC
  551; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao
F Chandrojirao Angre and Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692; State of
  Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC
  335; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors.(2000) 2
  SCC 636; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And Ors. v.
   Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 122; lnder
   Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.
G (2007) 12 SCC 1 - referred to.

         Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions(1964) AC
    1254; Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys (1977) AC
    1-referred to.
H
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1171
                    ANR.

    1.3. On careful consideration of the averments of the A
complainant and the statements of all the witnesses
recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint, no
specific allegations were found against the appellants in
the complaint and none of the witnesses alleged any role
of both the appellants. Appellant no.1 is a permanent B
resident of place 'S' and was living with her husband for
more than seven years. Similarly, appellant no.2 is a
permanent resident of place 'G'. They never visited the
place where the alleged incident took place. They never
lived with respondent no.2 and her husband. Their c
implication in the complaint was meant to harass and
humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the
only basis to file the said complaint against the
appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue the said
complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
                                                                 0
When the facts and circumstances of the case are
considered in the bac~ground of legal principles, then it
would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the
rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, it is
appropriate to quash the complaint against the
appellants. The impugned judgment of the High Court is E
set aside. [Paras 26, 27 and 36] [1184-E-H; 1185-A; 1188-
A-B]

     2.1 It is a matter of common knowledge that
unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing F
in India. All the courts in the country including this Court
are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly
demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of
a large number of people of the society. It is a matter of
common experience that most of these complaints under G
section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over
trivial issues without proper deliberations. There are large
number of such complaints which are not even bona fide
and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
                                                                H
    1172   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 9 S.S.R.


A increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
  harassment are also a matter of serious concern. [Paras
  28 and 30] [1185-B-H; 1186-A-B]

       2.2 The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
  truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To
8
  find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these
  complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all
  his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times,
  even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to
  ascertain the truth. The courts have to be extremely
C careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and
  must take pragmatic realities into consideration while
  dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
  harassment of husband's close relations who had been
  living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited
D the place where the complainant resided would have an
  entirely different complexion. The allegations of the
  complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care
  and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and ·
  protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and
E bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is
  also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed
  by the complainant if the husband or the husband's
  relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would
  ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The
F process of suffering is extremely long and painful. [Para
  33] [1186-G-H; 1187-A-C]

      2.3 A serious re-look of the entire provision is
  warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of
G common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the
  incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.
  The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a
  very large number of cases. (Para 34] [1187-D]


H
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & 1173
                    ANR.
                                        <
       2.4 The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for A
  all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also
  not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of
  ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these
  complaints have not only flooded the courts but also
  have led to. enormous social unrest affecting peace, B
  harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that
  the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic
  realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It
  is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration
  the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in c
  consideration and make necessary changes in the
  relevant provisions of law. The Registry is directed to
  send a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission and
  to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who
  may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice
                                                               0
  to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the
. society. [Para 35] [1187-E-H]

     3. The learned members of the· Bar have enormous
social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the
social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They E
must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents
should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority
of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with
their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who
belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble F
traditions and should treat every complaint under section
498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious
endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable
resolution of that human problem. They must discharge
their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that G
social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains
intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that
one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. [Para 31]
[1186-C-E]
                                                              H
    1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A                        Case Law Reference:

        (1964) AC 1254             Referred to.         Para 16

        (1977) AC 1                Referred to.         Para 16

        AIR 1960 SC 866            Referred to.         Para 18 .
B
        (1977) 2 sec 699           Referred to.         Para 19

        (1977) 4 sec 551           Referred to.         Para 20

        (1988) 1 sec 692           Referred to.         Para 21
c
        1992 Supp. (1) sec 335 Referred to.             Para 22

        (2000) 2 sec 636           Referred to.         Para 23

        (2005) 1 sec 122           Referred to.         Para 24
D       (2001) 12 sec 1            Referred to.         Para 25

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1512 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 27.04.2009 .of the High
E
    Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. M.P. No. 304 of 2009.

          Arvind Kumar, Laxmi Arvind, Poonam Prasad, Anuj Kumar
    for the Appellants.

F       Nagendra Rai, Ejaz Maqbool, Faraz Khan, Sakshi Banga,
    Garima Kapoor, Gopal Prasad for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
       2. This appeal has been filed by Preeti Gupta the married
  sister-in-law and a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat,
  Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent
  resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra, who is the unmarried
H brother-in-law of the complainant, Manisha Poddar, against the
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1175
        ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
impugned judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi,          A
Jharkhand dated 27.4.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition Nos.304 of 2009.

    3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this
appeal are recapitulated as under:
                                                                     B
     The Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar
at Kanpur on 10.12.2006. Immediately after the marriage, the
complainant who is respondent no.2 in this appeal left for
Mumbai along with her husband Kamal Poddar who was
working with the Tata Consultancy Services (for short "TCS")         C
and was permanently residing at Mumbai. The complainant
also joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006. Respondent
no.2 visited Ranchi to participate in "Gangaur" festival (an
important Hindu festival widely celebrated in Northern India) on
16.3.2007. After staying there for a week, she returned to           D
Mumbai on 24.03.2007.

     4. Respondent no.2, Manisha Poddar filed a complain_t on
08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under
sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal          E
Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
against all immediate relations of her husband, namely,
Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband),
Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried
brother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta @ Preeti Agrawal (married
sister-in-law). The complaint was transferred to the court of the    F
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Statements of Respondent no.2
and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008 the
Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed the
summoning order of the appellants. The appellants are
aggrieved by the said summoning order.                               G

    5. In the criminal complaint, it was alleged that a luxury car
was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint. It
was also alleged that respondent no.2 was physically assaulted
                                                                     H
    1176     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the
    complainant, it appears that the alleged incidents had taken
    place either at Kanpur or Mumbai. According to the averments
    of the complaint, except for the demand of the luxury car no
    incident of harassment took place at Ranchi.
8
         6. According to the appellants, there was no specific
    allegation against both the appellants in the complaint.
    Appellant no.1 had been permanently residing with her husband
    at Navasari, Surat (Gujarat) for the last more than seven years.
C   She had never visited Mumbai during the year 2007 and never
    stayed with respondent no.2 or her husband. Similarly,
    appellant no.2, unmarried brother-in-law of the complainant has
    also been permanently residing at Goregaon, Maharashtra.

         7. It was asserted that there is no specific allegation in the
D   entire complaint against both the appellants. The statements
    of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were also recorded
    along with the statement of the complainant. None of the
    prosecution. witnesses had stated anything against the
    appellants. These appellants had very clearly stated in this
E   appeal that they had never visited Ranchi. The appellants also
    stated that they had never interfered with the internal affairs of
    the complainant and her husband. According to them, there
    was no question of any interference because the appellants had
    been living in different cities for a number of years.
F         8. It was clearly alleged by the appellants that they had
    been falsely implicated in this case. It was further stated that
    the complaint against the appellants was totally without any
    basis or foundation. The appellants also asserted that even if
    all the allegations incorporated in the complaint were taken to
G   be true, even then no offence could be made out against them.

         9. The appellants had submitted that the High Court ought
    to have quashed this complaint as far as both the appellants
    are concerned because there were no specific allegations
H   against the appellants and they ought not have been
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1177
        ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

summoned. In the impugned judgment, while declining to                A
exercise its inherent powers, the High Court observed as under:

    "In this context, I may again reiterate that the acts relating
    to demand or subjecting to cruelty, as per the complaint
    petition, have been committed at the place where the              B
    complainant was living with her husband. However, the
    complainant in her statement made under solemn
    affirmation has stated that when she came to Ranchi on
    the occasion of Holi, all the accused persons came and
    passed sarcastic remarks which in absence of actual               C
    wordings, according to the learned counsel appearing for
    the petitioner could never be presumed to be an act
    constituting offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal
    Code."

      10. In this appeal, both the appellants specifically asserted   D
that they had never visited Ranchi, therefore, the allegations that
they made any sarcastic remarks to the complainant had no
basis or foundation as far as the appellants are concerned.

     11. The complainant could not dispute that appellant no.1        E'
was a permanent resident living with her husband at Navasari,
Surat, Gujarat for the last more than seven years and the
appellant no.2 was permaner • resident of Goregaon,
Maharashtra. They had never spent any time with respondent
no.2.
                                                                      F
     12. According to the appellants, they are not the residents
of Ranchi and if they are compelled to attend the Ranchi Court
repeatedly then that would lead to insurmountable harassment
and inconvenience to the appellants as well as to the
complainant.                                                          G

      13. The complaint in this case under section 498-A IPC
has led to several other cases. It is mentioned that a divorce
petition has been filed by the husband of respondent no.2. Both
respondent no.2 and her husband are highly qualified and are          H
    1178    SUPREME COURT REPOITTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A working with reputed organization like Tata Consultancy
  Service. If because of temperamental incompatibility they
  cannot live with each other then it is proper that they should
  jointly get a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Both
  respondent no.2 and her husband are in such age group that if
B proper efforts are made, their re-settlement may not be
  impossible.

        14. The main question which falls for consideration in this
  case is whether the High Court was justified in not exercising
C its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
  Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?

       15. This court in a number of cases has laid down the
  scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.
  Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae
D to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which
  alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
  Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

                (i)     to give effect to an order under the Code;
E
                (ii)    to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

                (iii)   to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

       16. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the
F courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this
  extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends
  of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power
  to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the
  Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from
G abuse. In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964]
  AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal
  proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is
  empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.
  Lord Salmon in Directc.· of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys
H (1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & 1179
        ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to      A
an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and
vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further
mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of
great constitutional importance and should be jealously
preserved.                                                          B·

     17. The powers possessed by the High Court under
section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude
of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court
must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power C
is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing
to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to
grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are .
incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been D
collected and produced before the court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that
they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
 material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in
 regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its E
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any
stage.

     18. This court had occasion to examine the legal position
in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab        F
AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of
cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to
quash the proceedings:

            (i)    where it manifestly appears that there is a
                   legal bar against the institution or             G
                   continuance of the proceedings;

            (ii)   where the allegations in the first information
                   report or complaint taken at their face value
                                                                    H
    1180    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 9 S.C.R.


A                       and accepted in their entirety do not
                        constitute the offence alleged;

                (iii)   where the allegations constitute an offence,
                        but there is no legal evidence adduced or the
                        evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails
B
                        to prove the charge.

        19. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy &
    Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power
  under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a
C proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
  proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of
  the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
  ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with
  inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve
D a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be
  permitted to degenerate into a weapon of' harassment or
  persecution. In this case, the co~rt observed that ends of justice
  are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be
  administered according to laws made by the legislature. This
E case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases
  of this court and other courts.

        20. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977)
    4 sec 551, a three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:-

F       " ..... 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) .;an limit or affect the exercise
G       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
H       exercise of the power of the High Court in accordance with
 PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1181
         ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]           -

     Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming, that the           A
     invoking of the revisional power of the High Court is
     impermissible."

    21. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC_ 692            B·
observed in para 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 C
     the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration
     any special features which appear in a particulaf1 case to
     consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of
     justice to permit a ptosecution to continue. This is so on
     the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique D
     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 E
     proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

       22. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others
  1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of
  interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code of       F
  Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) under Chapter XIV and
  of the principles of law enunciated by this 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      G
  could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
  the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this
  court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any
  precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
                                                                     H
     1182   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive
    list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
    exercised:

                "(1) Where the allegations made in the first
                     information report or the complaint, even if
B
                     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.

c               (2)   Where the allegations 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
D                     Code except under an order of a Magistrate
                      within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
                      Code.

                (3)   Where the uncontroverted allegations made
                      in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
E
                      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
F                     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
G                     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
H
P-REETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1183
         ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

                   there is sufficient ground for proceeding           A
                  1against 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
                                                                       B
                  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                C
                  wievance of the aggrieved party.

            (7)    Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
                   attended with ma/a fide and/or where the
                   proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
                  /ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the       D
                   accused and with a view to spite him due to
                   private and personal grudge."

     23. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others
(2000) 2 SCC 636, this court observed that it is the duty and          E
obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of
caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are
essentially of civil nature.

    24. This court in. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. &
Others v. Mohd. Sharafu/ Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122              F
observed thus:-

    "It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
    action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion
    of justice. in· exercise of the powers, court would be justified   G
    to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/
    continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court
    or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve
    the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
    complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
                                                                       H
    1184     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A        When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
         permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
         complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made
         out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

B       25. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari,
   J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in lnder Mohan
   Goswami and Another v. State of Uttarancha/ & Others (2007)
 / 12  sec  1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The
   court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant
C observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said
   judgment as under:-

        "lnherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
        have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
        caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
D       specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the
        court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of
        the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of
        the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing
        injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of
E       specific provisions in the Statute."

         26. We have very carefully considered the averments of
    the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded
    at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific
F   allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of
    the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.

       27. Admittedly, appellant no.1 is a permanent resident of
  Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband
  for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant no.2 is a
G permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra. They have
  never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken
  place. They had never lived with respondent no.2 and her
  h1•sband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass
  and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only
H basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1185
        ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse              A
of the process of law.

    28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the
courts in our country including this court are flooded with
                                                                        8
matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and
unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

    29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases
emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which
reads as under:-                                                        C

     "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
     subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband
     or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
     woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for           0
     a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
     liable to fine.

     Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty'
     means:-
                                                                        E
              (a)   any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
                    as is likely to drive the woman to commit
                    suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
                    life, limb or health (whether mental or
                    physical) of the woman; or                          F



              (b)   harassment of the woman where such
                    harassment is with a view to coercing her or
                    any person related to her to meet any unlawful      G
                    demand for any property or valuable security
                    or is on account of failure by her ·or any
                    person related to her to meet such demand."

      30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these        H
     1186    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the
    moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We
    come across a large number of such complaints which are not
    even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same
    time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
B   harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

         31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social
    responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of
    family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that
    exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected
C   in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed
    either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
    members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must
    maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint
    under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make
D   serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable
    resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their
    duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber,
    peace and· tranquility of the society remains intact. The
    members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint
E   should not lead to multiple cases.

         32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the
    implications and consequences are not properly visualized by
    the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable
F   harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and
    his close relations.

        33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and
  punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth
  is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The
G tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations
  is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of
  criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts
  have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
  complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration
H
PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1187
        ANR. [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of               A
harassment of husband's close relations who had been living
in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place
where the complainant resided would have an entirely different
complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience          s
reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour,
acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.
It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by
the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had
to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances       c
of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is
extremely long and painful.

     34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe
that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the
legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that              D
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large
number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also
reflected in a very large number of cases.

     35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all        E
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be
able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.
Unfortunately a large number of' ese complaints have not only
flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest
affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high      F
time that the legislature must take into consideration the
pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing
law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration
the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in
consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant               G
provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this
judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law
Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the
Hon'ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps
in the larger interest of the society.
                                                                       H
            1188    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 9 S.C.R.


        A      36. When the facts and circumstances of the case are
          considered in the background of legal principles set out in
          preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the
          appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the
          interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the
        B complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned
          judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this
          appeal is allowed.

            N.J .                                       Appeal allowed.




.   .