Sushila & Ors. vs State of U.P. & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

16 April 2025

Case No.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2020/2025

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra

Citation

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 161 : 2025 INSC 505

Acts & Sections

IPC CrPC Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Issue for consideration

Whether High Court correctly disposed of the prayer for quashing of the summoning order issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case u/ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on merits.

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 323, 504, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – s.4 – K is the husband of respondent no.2 and appellants herein are relatives of K – Matrimonial dispute arose between K and respondent no.2 – K filed for divorce – Exparte divorce decree was passed by the Family Court – After

3 years from the passing of the divorce decree, respondent no.2 filed complaint u/s.156(3) CrPC – Pursuant thereto, Magistrate issued summons against the appellants u/s.498A IPC – Appellants filed petition u/s.482 CrPC for quashing of summoning order before the High Court which was dismissed – Correctness:

Held: Admittedly, the marriage has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on 31.05.2012 and the present complaint was filed after three years of divorce – Except for the bald statement against the appellants, the other allegations are against the husband – There is absolutely no reason or justification as to why the appellants would try for a reconciliation by visiting the house of the complainant on 16.08.2015 when the divorce has already taken place by order dated 31.05.2012 – As a matter of fact, the complaint is largely devoted to the ill-treatment committed by the husband and the only reference to the appellants is made for the incident dated 16.08.2015 at her own house at NOIDA – However, by that time, the ex-parte decree of divorce had already been passed – Having examined the allegations in the present case, there is no hesitation in holding that the present appellants have unnecessarily been roped in the complaint without there being any specific allegation against them for any incident which had taken place between the husband and the wife during subsistence of marriage – This Court is of the considered view that allowing the trial to proceed against the appellants shall amount to vexatious trial only for the reason that they are relatives of the husband – Accordingly, the Complaint Case against the appellants is hereby quashed. [Paras 9, 12]

Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. Under the impugned order, the High Court has disposed of the appellants’ prayer for quashing of the summoning order dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 2789 of 2015 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Pernal Code, 18601 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 without deciding the quashing petition on merits. 3. Kumar Saurabh is the husband of respondent no. 2 (Smt. Charusmita) and the appellants are the relatives of Kumar Saurabh. The appellant no.1 - Sushila is the mother, appellant no.

View Subscription Plans →