“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO  1973  OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) No. 2274 of 2008)  

Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan … Appellant

Versus

Ram Gopal Poddar & Anr. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment will also dispose of the Transfer  

Petition being T.P. (Crl.) No. 259/2008 filed on behalf  

of Smt. Rekha Kailash Poddar who is the daughter-in-law  

of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1 herein.   

3. The facts are very peculiar.  Smt. Rekha Poddar  

who  is  the  daughter-in-law  of  the  respondent  No.  1  

herein,  is also  the sister  of the  appellant herein.  

After the marriage allegedly she was harassed by her  

in-laws for dowry.  She, therefore, proceeded to file a  

complaint  for  the  offences  punishable  under  Sections  

498A,  406  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (IPC)  read  with  

1

Section  4  of  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act  against  Ram  

Gopal  Poddar,  respondent  No.  1  herein,  who  is  her  

father-in-law.  The respondent No. 1 was arrested for  

those offences on 15.7.2004 and was released on bail on  

the  next  day  i.e.  16.7.2004.   In  pursuance  of  this  

complaint,  the  police  officers  from  Nerul  Police  

Station  and  also  from  Rajasthan  had  gone  to  the  

matrimonial home at Mumbai for investigation, with whom  

the  present appellant  was also  present.  The police  

conducted a raid at the matrimonial house on 14.7.2004  

when  the  appellant  herein  was  also  present.   They  

probably wanted to seize the passport of the sister of  

the appellant.   

4. On 17.7.2004, a written complaint came to be filed  

in Nerul Police Station alleging that the appellant had  

stolen some gold ornaments during that raid.  However,  

the  police  did  not  take  the  cognizance  of  that  

complaint.  A criminal complaint, therefore, came to be  

filed after about six months i.e. on 17.3.2005 in the  

Court of 1st Class Judicial Magistrate at Vashi for the  

offence punishable under Section 379 IPC against the  

appellant  alone.   The  cognizance  was  taken  of  this  

2

complaint on 2.4.2005 for the offence punishable under  

Section 379 IPC and process came to be issued.   

5. The  appellant,  therefore,  challenged  the  order  

issuing  process  by  way  of  a  Criminal  Revision  

Application dated 5.7.2006 before the Sessions Judge at  

Thane.   This  Criminal  Revision  Application,  however,  

was  withdrawn  on  7.5.2007,  though  the  withdrawal  

application was opposed by the complainant-respondent.  

According to the appellant, this was done without his  

knowledge or consent and he had not put his signatures  

on  the  withdrawal  application.   By  order  dated  

7.5.2007, the Sessions Judge permitted withdrawal.   

6. The appellant, therefore, moved Bombay High Court  

by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal  

Procedure  Code  (Cr.P.C.),  challenging  the  whole  

proceedings.   He  also proceeded  to file  a complaint  

against his lawyers in the Bar Council of Maharashtra  

for misconduct.  The High Court, however, dismissed his  

petition  holding  that  the  only  remedy  left  for  the  

appellant was to again go before the Sessions Judge and  

get the matter restored.  It is this judgment of the  

High Court which is sought to be challenged before us  

by way of the present appeal.

3

7. Indisputably, there was a background against the  

complaint  filed  involving  the  present  appellant  and  

that  was  the  prosecution  by  the  daughter-in-law  of  

respondent No. 1 herein who was also the sister of the  

appellant herein.  There can be no dispute that in the  

complaint there were allegations made of the theft of  

two gold bangles (Patli) weighing about 60 grams.  We  

have also seen the verification statement recorded by  

Ram  Gopal  Poddar,  respondent  No.  1,  wherein  he  has  

stated that it was the accused (appellant herein) who  

accompanied  ASI  Shri  Gupta  and  Hawaldar  Jaiprakash  

Singh from Nerul Police Station.  It is admitted that  

these  police  officers  and  the  appellant/accused  had  

come to the house of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1  

in connection with the criminal prosecution instituted  

by the daughter-in-law of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent  

No. 1, who was the sister of the accused/appellant.  It  

is then stated that the accused/appellant forced ASI  

Shri Gupta to take search of cupboards for seizing the  

passport  of  Smt.  Rekha  Poddar,  daughter-in-law  of  

respondent No. 1.  The appellant asked respondent No. 1  

for key of cupboard and opened the cupboard and in the  

absence of Ram Gopal Poddar, respondent No. 1, “they”  

stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams.  Therefore,  

4

it  was  obvious  that  the  criminal  complaint  was  in  

retaliation of the criminal prosecution which was being  

faced by the respondent No. 1 herein.  It was on the  

basis of the complaint and the verification statement  

of  the  complainant/respondent  No.  1  alone  that  the  

Judicial Magistrate, Vashi took cognizance and issued  

summons.   

8. It is undoubtedly true that the appellant herein  

challenged it by way of a criminal revision before the  

Sessions Judge, Thane and very significantly, the said  

revision came to be withdrawn.  There does not appear  

to  be  any  reason  for  such  sudden  and  inexplicable  

withdrawal.  We have seen the reply to the revision  

filed  by  Ram  Gopal  Poddar,  respondent  No.  1.   From  

there,  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  same  role  is  

ascribed and it is admitted therein that the passport  

was seized by the police officer.  It is also suggested  

that  thereafter,  the  appellant/accused  locked  the  

cupboard and handed over the keys to the respondent No.  

1 who kept the same in his pocket and thereafter, he  

was  arrested  and  taken  to  Rajasthan.   It  is  then  

suggested that key alongwith other things were handed  

over to the lawyer of the respondent No. 1.  On this  

5

basis,  it  is  suggested  that  it  was  the  

appellant/accused  alone  who  had  stolen  the  gold  

bangles, which fact probably came to the notice of the  

respondent No. 1 only after coming back to Bombay.   

9. The  only  material  on  the  basis  of  which  the  

Magistrate issued the summons was the complaint and the  

verification statement.  Beyond the allegations which  

we  have  already  mentioned,  there  are  no  other  

allegations.  We feel on the face of it the allegations  

were absurd and without any basis.  It is absurd to  

think that the appellant herein who was present with  

the police party (2 in No.) would venture to pocket the  

bangles in their presence.  Further, admittedly, after  

locking the locker, the keys were handed over to the  

respondent No. 1.  Neither is it known nor has it been  

made clear as to when the respondent No. 1 opened the  

locker again to find that the two gold bangles were  

stolen.   Be  that  as  it  may,  the  very  look  of  the  

complaint is enough to convince one about the absurdity  

of the allegations.  When the complaint is seen on the  

backdrop of the prosecution of the respondent No. 1 for  

offences under Section 498 IPC and the allied offences,  

the absurdity becomes all the more prominent.  Again  

6

there  is  no  complaint  against  the  two  accompanying  

police officers.  They have not been made accused in  

the complaint.  There can be no doubt, therefore, that  

the complaint wholly lacks the bona fides and it was  

obviously  with  the  indirect  motive  for  hounding  the  

appellant  who  was  none  else  but  the  brother  of  the  

daughter-in-law of respondent No. 1 who had started the  

criminal proceedings.

10. The  learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  is,  

therefore, right in contending that the complaint had  

to  be  quashed,  firstly,  because  it  was  absurd  and  

secondly,  because  the  complainant/respondent  No.  1  

wholly  lack the  bona fides  in filing  such complaint  

which  was  absurd.   The  learned  Counsel  for  the  

respondent No. 1 vehemently argued that at this stage,  

what  was  to  be  seen  was  only  the  contents  of  the  

complaint and if there appeared the basic contentions  

indicating  committing  of  crime  by  the  

appellant/accused, then the Courts would not interfere  

with the same and leave the parties to lead evidence  

during  the  ensuing  trial,  relying  on  the  oft-quoted  

decision in  State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal &  

Ors. [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335].  There can be no dispute  

7

about the law laid down in that case.  However, where  

on the face of it the absurd charges are levelled and  

there  is  a  whole  lack  of  the  bona  fides  of  the  

complainant/respondent  No.1,  in  our  opinion,  there  

would be no fetter in using the powers under Section  

482 Cr.P.C.   

11. It  was  pointed  out  that  the  criminal  revision  

against  the  issuance  of  summons  was  withdrawn.   We  

were, therefore, taken to the High Court’s judgment,  

where the High Court has found itself to be powerless  

in view of the withdrawal of the criminal revision and  

had advised the parties to go back to the revisional  

Court and get it restored.  We do not think that the  

High Court was justified in advising the appellant to  

go back to the Sessions Judge and to get the criminal  

revision  revived  without  going  into  the  question  

whether such revision could have been revived in law or  

not.  We observe that the High Court was not powerless.  

The High Court itself was exercising its jurisdiction  

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where the High Court could  

pass any order in the interests of justice.  This power  

was  available  only  to  the  High  Court  in  

contradistinction to the Sessions Judge who was only  

8

entertaining the revision application of the appellant  

under Section 397 Cr.P.C.  The High Court should have,  

therefore, applied its mind to the fact situation.  It  

should have been realized that the complaint was wholly  

covered under the 7th circumstance in the case of State  

of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (cited supra),  

which is as under:-

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

It was also covered under 3rd circumstance in the  

case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.  

(cited supra), which suggests:-

“3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the  FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support  of  the  same  do  not  disclose  the  commission  of  any  offence and make out a case against the accused.”

We reiterate that when the criminal Court looks  

into the complaint, it has to do so with the open mind.  

True it is that that is not the stage for finding out  

the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where  

the  allegations  themselves  are  so  absurd  that  no  

reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court  

could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed  

9

its inability to do anything in the matter.  Section  

482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice.  The High  

Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder  

to  pass  any  order  in  the  interest  of  justice.  

Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the  

High  Court  to  look  into  the  allegations  with  the  

openness and then to decide whether to pass any order  

in the interests of justice.  In our opinion, this was  

a case where the High Court ought to have used its  

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.   

12. In view of the fact, we ordinarily would have sent  

the matter back to the High Court, but there is no  

point  now  in  remanding  the  matter  back  to  the  High  

Court in view of the pendency of this matter for last  

six years.  In that view, we allow this appeal, set  

aside  the  order  of  the  High  Court  and  quash  the  

criminal proceedings started by the respondent No. 1  

vide criminal case No. 194 of 2005.   

13. In view of this order, it will not be necessary to  

pass any order in the transfer petition which seeks the  

10

transfer of the very complaint which we have quashed  

herein.

……………………….J.    [V.S. Sirpurkar]

 ...………………….….J.

     [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi; October 8, 2010.

11

12