TARAMANI PARAKHversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

                                                                     I-
                        [2015] 3 S.C.R. 672


A                       TARAMANI PARAKH
                                  v.
                      STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2015)
B                        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
        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.
                                                            D
                 Case law reference

(2009) 10 sec 184         Referred to.           Para 6

2010 (12) SCR 289         Referred to.           Para 6     E
2012 (9) SCR 641          Referred to.           Para 6

(2012) 8 sec 460          Referred to.           Para 10

                                                            F
  CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 456 of 2015.

    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

            ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
     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
   with demand of dowry amounting to cruelty. This led to
0
   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.
   It was thereafter that the appellant filed the impugned complaint
   dated 19th May, 2011 which contained false allegations.


H
          TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                     675
              [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

   5. The petition was contested by the appellant.                A

     6. The High Court relying upon judgments of this Court in
  Nee/u Chopra and another vs. Bharti1, Manoj Mahavir
  Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Moddar and another- and
  Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh B
· and another'- held that since there were no specific
  allegations, the criminal proceedings against the accused
  amounted to abuse of the court's j)rocess. Accordingly, the
  High Court quashed the criminal proceedings.
                                                                  c
    7. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant has approached
 this Court.

   8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
 perused the record.                                              D

    9. Learned counsel forthe appellant submitted that it was
 the conduct of the accused on account of their not being
 satisfied with the dowry given and the inability of the appellant's
 family to meet such demands that the appellant was forced to E
 leave the matrimonial home. The appellant was keen to
 continue in the matrimonial home and to return home even after
 being forced to leave but the accused refused to take her back.
 The husband has filed a divorce petition which is without any
 legal basis. The appellant lodged the complaint after filing of F
 the divorce petition for the reason that the appellant had earlier
 remained hopeful that the matter may be amicably settled. It
 was only after she lost all hopes that she had to initiate criminal
 proceedings in respect of cruelty meted out to her. The High
 Court in proceedings under Section 482 could not quash the G
 proceedings merely with the observation that the allegations
 were omnibus. The power of quashing could be exercised
 sparingly and only if no case was made out from the allegations
 taken as correct or where the complaint was absurd or legally H
676          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015] 3 S.C.R.


A     not maintainable. In the FIR, the appellant has specifically
      mentioned that the accused harassed her for dowry by taunting
      her and beating her. It was already mentioned that she was
      deprived of her belongings by the accused.

8       10. Learned counsel for the accused respondents
      supported the impugned order passed by the High Court.

          11. Law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations
      are absurd or do not made out any case or if it can be held that
c     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 matrimonial cases, the Courts have to be cautious when
      omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives
D     who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple.
      We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the
      issue. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor vs.
      Ramesh Chander and AnrA it was observed:

E             "27. 1. Though there are no limits of the powers
             of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but
             the more the power, the more due care and
             caution is to be exercised in invoking these
             powers. The power of quashing criminal
F            proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in
             terms of Section 228 of the Code should be
             exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
             and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
G            27.2. The Court should apply the test as to
             whether the uncontroverted allegations as made
             from the record of the case and the documents
             submitted therewith prima facie establish the
             offence or not. If the allegations are so patently
H
    TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                      677
        [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

 absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent           A
 person can ever reach such a conclusion and
 where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence
 are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.

 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere.          B
  No meticulous examination of the evidence is
  needed for considering whether the case would
  end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of
· charge or quashing of charge.
                                                            c
 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is
 absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage
 ofjustice and for correcting some grave error that
 might be committed by the subordinate courts
 even in such cases, the High Court should be loath         D
 to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the
 prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted
 in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific      E
 law in force to the vel}' initiation or institution and
 continuance of such criminal proceedings,· such
 a bar is intended to provide specific protection to
 an accused.
                                                           F
 27. 6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom
 of a person and the right. of the complainant or
 prosecution to investigate and prosecute the
 offender.
                                                           G
 27. 7. The process of the court cannot be permitted
 to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior
 purpose.

 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they              H
678   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A     appeared from the record and documents annexed
      therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute
      a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and
      does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal
      offence, the court may be justified in quashing the
B     charge. Even in such cases, the court would not
      embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.

      27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
      have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
c     evidence and materials on record to determine
      whether there is sufficient material on the basis of
      which the case would end in a conviction; the court
      is concerned primarily with the allegations taken
      as a whole whether they will constitute an offence
D
      and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court
      leading to injustice.

      27. 10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called
      upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate
E     evidence collected by the investigating agencies
      to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
      conviction.

      27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim
F     and also amount to an offence, merely because a
      civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a
      criminal complaint cannot be maintained.

      27. 12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
G     228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot
      take into consideration external materials given by
      an accused for reaching the conclusion that no
      offence was disclosed or that there was possibility
      of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the
H
   TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                    679
       [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

record and documents annexed therewith by the            A
prosecution.

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the
rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence
is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more      B
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is
not expected to marshal the records with a view to
decide admissibility and reliability of the
documents or records but is an opinion formed            C
prima facie.

27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under
Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from
fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well         D
within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.

27. 15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where
the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of
process of the Code or that the interest of justice      E
favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to
do real and substantial justice for administration
of which atone, the courts exist.
                                                         F
  (Ref. State ofWB. v. Swapan KumarGuha
 f(1982J 1  sec   561 : 1982  sec  (Cri) 283:
 AIR 1982 SC 949]; Madhavrao Jiwajirao
 Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
 [(1988) 1  sec   692: 1988   sec  (Cri) 234];          G
 Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary-[(1992) 4 SCC
 305: 1993   sec  (Cri) 36: AIR 1993 SC 892],"
 Rupan Deal Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
 [(1995) 6  sec  194: 1995   sec  (Cri) 1059];
                                                        H
    680   SUPREME.COURT REPORTS               [2015] 3 S.C.R.


    A     G Sagar Suri v. State of U. P. [(2000) 2 SCC
          636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513]; Ajay Mitra v.
          state of M.P-{{2003) 3 sec 11 : 2003 sec
          (Cri) 703]; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
          Judicial Magistrate-{(1998) 5 SCC 749 :
    B     1998 sec (Cri) 1400: AIR 1998 SC 128];
          State of U.P v. O.P Sharma-{{1996) 7 SCC
          705: 1996 SCC (Cri) 497]; .Ganesh Narayan
          Hegde v. S. Bangarappa.[(1995) 4 SCC 41:
          1995 SCC (Cri) 634]; Zandu Pharmaceutical
    c     Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque.[(2005)
          1 sec 122 : 2005 sec (Cri) 283]; Medchl
          Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
          E. Ltd..[(2000) 3 sec 269 : 2000 sec (CriJ
    D     615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869]; Shakson
          Belthissor v. State of Kerala.[(2009) 14 SCC
          466: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412}; V. V.S. Rama
          Sharma v. State of U.P..[(2009) 7 SCC 234:
          (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356]; Chunduru Siva
    E     Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu
•         £(2009J 11 sec 203: (2009J 3 sec (CriJ
          1297]; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar
          [(1987) 1 sec 288: 1987 sec (Cri) 82J;
          State ofBiharv. P.P Sharma.[1992 Supp (1)
    F     sec 222: 1992 sec (CriJ 192: AIR 1991
          SC 1260]; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar
          {(2001J 2 sec 17: 2001 sec (CriJ 275]; M.
          Krishnan v. Vijay Singh.[(2001) 8 SCC 645:
          2002 SCC (Cri) 19]; Savita v. State of
    G
          Rajasthan-{{2005) 12 SCC 338: (2006) 1
          SCC (Cri) 571] and S.M. Datta v. State of
          Gujarat [(2001 J 7 sec 659: 2001 sec (Cri)
          1361: 2001 sec (L&SJ 12011).
    H
        TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                   681
            [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

      27.16. These are the principles which individually     A
       and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be
       taken into consideration as precepts to exercise
       of extraordinary and wide plenitude and
      jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the
    · High Court. Where the factual foundation for an        B
       offence has been laid down, the courts should be
       reluctant and should not hasten to quash the
       proceedings even on the premise that one or two
       ingredients have not been stated or do not appear
       to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance
                                                             c
       with the requirements of the offence."



   12. In Kai/ash ChandraAgrawal&Am: vs. StateofU.P.         D
& Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2055 of 2014 decided on
6.9.2014), it was observed:

     "9. We have gone through the FIR and the criminal
     complaint. In the FIR, the appellants have not been     E
     named and in the criminal complaint they have
     been named without attributing any specific role to
     them. The relationship of the appellants with the
     husband of the complainant is distant. In Kans Raj
     vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2000) 5 SCC 207],_it       F
     was observed:-

      "5 ...... ... A tendency has,      however,
      developed for roping in all relations of the
      in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters           G
      of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is
      likely to affect the case of the prosecution
      even against the real culprits. In their over
      enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction
                                                             H
682   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A      for maximum people, the parents of the
       deceased have been found to be making
       efforts for involving other relations which
       ultimately weaken the case of the
       prosecution even against the real accused
B      as appears to have happened in the instant
       case."

      The Court has, thus, to be careful in summoning
      distant relatives without there being specific
c     material. Only the husband, his parents or at best
      close family members may be expected to
      demand dowry or to harass the wife but not distant
      relations, unless there is tangible material to
      support allegations made against such distant
D
      relations. Mere naming of distant relations is not
      enough to summon them in absence of any
      specific role and material to support such role.

      10. The parameters for quashing proceedings in
E     a criminal complaint are well known. If there are
      triable issues, the Court is not expected to go into
      the veracity of the rival versions but where on the
      face of it, the criminal proceedings are abuse of
F
      Court's process, quashing jurisdiction can be
      exercised. Reference may be made to K.
      Ramakrsihna and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
      [(2000) 8 SCC 547], Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs.
      Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5
G     SCC 749], State of Harvana and Ors. vs. Ch.
      Bhajan Lal and Ors. [( 1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335] and
      Asmathunnisa vs. State ofA. P represented bv the
      Public Prosecutor.· High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
      and Anr. [(2011) 11 sec 259]."
H
         TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                    683
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

                                                               A

13.    In the present case, the complaint is as follows:

      "Sir, it is submitted that I was manied on 18. 11. 09
      with Sidharath Parakh slo Manak Chand Parak, rl
                                                               B
      o Sarafa Bazar in front of Radha Krishna Market,
      Gwalior according to the Hindu rites and customs.
      In the maniage my father had given gold and silver
      ornaments, cash amount and household goods
      according to his capacity. After the maniage when        c
      I went to my matrimonial home, I was treated nicely
      by the members of the family. When on the
      second occasion I went to my matrimonial, my
      husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started
      harassing me for brining the dowry and started           D
      saying that I should bring from my father 25-30
      to/as of gold and Rs.2,00,0001- in cash and only
      then they would keep me in the house otherwise
      not. On account of this my husband also used to
                                                               E
      beat me and my father-in-law and my mother-in-
      law used to torture me by giving the taunts. In this
      connection I used to tell my father Kundanmal
      Oswal, my mother Smt. Prem Lata Oswal, uncle
      Ashok Rai Sharma and uncle Ved Prakash Mishra            F
      from time to time. On 2.4.2010 the members of
      the family of my matrimonial home forcibly sent
      me to the house of my parents in Ganj Basoda
      along with my brother Deepak. They snatched my
      clothes and ornaments and kept with them. Since          G
      then till today my husband has been harassing
      me on the telephone and has not come to take
      me back. Being compelled, I have been moving
      this application before you. Sir, it is prayed that
                                                               H
684         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 3 S.C.R.


A           action be taken against husband Sidharath
            Parakh, my father-in-law Manak Chand Parakh
            and rhf mother-in-law Smt. Indira Parakh for
            torturing me on account of demanding the dowry."

B         14: From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that
      evei)'lfthe allegations are taken as proved no case is made
      out.

      15.There are.allegations against Respondent No.2 and
C 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 and safety and proper environment in the
  matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has
D intact 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. Thus. quashing of proceedings before the trial is not
  permissible.

E     16. The decisk>ns referred to in the judgment of the High
  Court are distinguishable. In Nee/u Chopra, parents of the
  husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and
  main allegations were only against him. This Court found no
  cogent material against other accused. In Manoj Mahavir,
F the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-
  in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused
  for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier 498A case. This
  Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra,
G case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce
  had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither
  purport to nor can be read as laying d.own any inflexible rule
  beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned
  above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are
H distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is
           TARAMANI PARAKH v. STATE OF M. P.                       685
               [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles,     A
it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the
accused.

   17. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the
impugned order passed by the High Court.                            B

Devika Gujral                                    Appeal allowed.