2015 (3) TMI 1240 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal proceedings against the accused - quashing of proceedings before the trial by HC - the 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 leave the matrimonial home - Held that - From reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved 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 and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial 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. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused. HC order set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of cruelty and harassment for dowry.
2. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Examination of the High Court's decision to quash proceedings.
4. Analysis of whether a triable case exists.

Detailed Analysis:

Allegations of Cruelty and Harassment for Dowry:
The appellant was married to Respondent No.2 on 18th November 2009. She filed a complaint on 19th May 2011, alleging that Respondent No.2 and his parents harassed her with demands for dowry, amounting to cruelty. This led to the registration of FIR under Sections 498-A/34 of IPC. The appellant claimed that the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given and harassed her, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. Despite her willingness to return, the accused refused to take her back. The complaint specifically mentioned that the accused taunted and beat her, and deprived her of her belongings.

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The respondents moved the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the appellant's behavior was not cordial and that her father took her away. They contended that the appellant's complaint was filed after the husband filed a divorce petition, and the allegations were false. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, citing the lack of specific allegations and considering the proceedings an abuse of the court's process.

Examination of the High Court's Decision to Quash Proceedings:
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's reliance on previous judgments, including Neelu Chopra vs. Bharti, Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Moddar, and Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court concluded that the allegations were general and did not warrant criminal proceedings. However, the Supreme Court noted that the power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no prima facie case is made out or the complaint is absurd or legally not maintainable.

Analysis of Whether a Triable Case Exists:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint, if taken as true, do make out a triable case. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, highlighting that the power to quash should be used with caution and only in rare cases. The Court observed that the complaint contained specific allegations of harassment and cruelty, which warranted a trial. The Court also noted that the decisions relied upon by the High Court were distinguishable based on their facts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the allegations made by the appellant were sufficient to constitute a triable case and that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings at the initial stage. The matter was remanded for trial to determine the veracity of the allegations.