Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Marriage between the appellant and respondent no.1 was solemnized in accordance with Muslim traditions and customs – After 5-6 months of the marriage, the private respondents started harassing the appellant for dowry – Due to continuous cruelty faced by the appellant at the hands of the private respondents, she returned to her paternal home and registered an FIR u/s.498A of the IPC and ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against respondent no.1 (husband), respondent no.2 (mother-in-law), respondent no.3 (father-in law), respondent no.4 (sister-in-law) and respondent no.5 (brother-in-law) – It was stated that on 22.07.2021, respondents hurled abuses at her and respondent no.5 slapped her and asked her to bring dowry – Thereafter, on 27.11.2022, respondent No.1, her husband, asked her to bring Rs.50 lakhs from her father – Respondents filed a petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR – The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings – Correctness: Held: On the aspect of the powers of the Courts u/s.482 of the Cr.PC, it is settled that at the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial – Thus, the jurisdiction u/s.482 of the Cr.PC with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available to proceed against the accused or not – If sufficient material is available, the power u/s.482 should not be exercised – In the present case, from the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the High Court quashed the FIR against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not mention the specific instances that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back to her matrimonial home – This approach adopted by the High Court, in considered opinion of this Court, amounts to conducting a mini trial – Accordingly, the present case warrants interference – Thus, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 22, 27, 28]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.