REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512    OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009)

Preeti Gupta & Another           …Appellants

Versus

State of Jharkhand & Another       ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed by Preeti Gupta the married  

sister-in-law  and  a  permanent  resident  of  Navasari,  Surat,  

Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent

resident  of  Goregaon,  Maharashtra,  who  is  the  unmarried  

brother-in-law of  the  complainant,  Manisha Poddar,  against  

the impugned judgment of  the High Court  of  Jharkhand at  

Ranchi,  Jharkhand  dated  27.4.2009  passed  in  Criminal  

Miscellaneous Petition Nos.304 of 2009.

3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal  

are recapitulated as under:

The Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddar  

at Kanpur on 10.12.2006.  Immediately after the marriage, the  

complainant  who  is  respondent  no.2  in  this  appeal  left  for  

Mumbai  along  with  her  husband  Kamal  Poddar  who  was  

working with the Tata Consultancy Services (for short “TCS”)  

and was permanently residing at Mumbai.  The complainant  

also joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006.   Respondent  

no.2  visited  Ranchi  to  participate  in  “Gangaur”  festival  (an  

important Hindu festival widely celebrated in Northern India)  

on 16.3.2007.  After staying there for a week, she returned to  

Mumbai on 24.03.2007.

2

4. Respondent no.2, Manisha Poddar filed a complaint on  

08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under  

sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal  

Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act  

against  all  immediate  relations  of  her  husband,  namely,  

Pyarelal  Poddar  (father-in-law),  Kamal  Poddar  (husband),  

Sushila  Devi  (mother-in-law),  Gaurav  Poddar  (unmarried  

brother-in-law)  and  Preeti  Gupta  @ Preeti  Agrawal  (married  

sister-in-law).  The complaint was transferred to the court of  

the  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ranchi.   Statements  of  Respondent  

no.2 and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008  

the  Judicial  Magistrate  took  cognizance  and  passed  the  

summoning  order  of  the  appellants.   The  appellants  are  

aggrieved by the said summoning order.

5. In the criminal complaint, it was alleged that a luxury car  

was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint.  It  

was  also  alleged  that  respondent  no.2  was  physically  

assaulted at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of the  

complainant, it appears that the alleged incidents had taken  

3

place  either  at  Kanpur  or  Mumbai.   According  to  the  

averments  of  the  complaint,  except  for  the  demand  of  the  

luxury car no incident of harassment took place at Ranchi.

6. According  to  the  appellants,  there  was  no  specific  

allegation  against  both  the  appellants  in  the  complaint.  

Appellant  no.1  had  been  permanently  residing  with  her  

husband at Navasari, Surat (Gujarat) for the last more than  

seven years. She had never visited Mumbai during the year  

2007 and never stayed with respondent no.2 or her husband.  

Similarly,  appellant  no.2,  unmarried  brother-in-law  of  the  

complainant has also been permanently residing at Goregaon,  

Maharashtra.  

7. It was asserted that there is no specific allegation in the  

entire complaint against both the appellants.  The statements  

of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW4 were also recorded along  

with  the  statement  of  the  complainant.  None  of  the  

prosecution  witnesses  had  stated  anything  against  the  

appellants.  These appellants had very clearly stated in this  

appeal that they had never visited Ranchi.  The appellants also  

4

stated that they had never interfered with the internal affairs  

of  the  complainant  and  her  husband.   According  to  them,  

there  was  no  question  of  any  interference  because  the  

appellants had been living in different cities for a number of  

years.  

8. It  was  clearly  alleged  by  the  appellants  that  they  had  

been falsely implicated in this case.  It was further stated that  

the complaint against the appellants was totally without any  

basis or foundation.  The appellants also asserted that even if  

all the allegations incorporated in the complaint were taken to  

be true, even then no offence could be made out against them.  

9. The appellants had submitted that the High Court ought  

to have quashed this complaint as far as both the appellants  

are  concerned  because  there  were  no  specific  allegations  

against  the  appellants  and  they  ought  not  have  been  

summoned.   In  the  impugned  judgment,  while  declining  to  

exercise  its  inherent  powers,  the  High  Court  observed  as  

under:

5

“In this context, I may again reiterate that the acts  relating to demand or subjecting to cruelty, as per  the complaint petition, have been committed at the  place  where  the  complainant  was  living  with  her  husband.   However,  the  complainant  in  her  statement  made  under  solemn  affirmation  has  stated  that  when  she  came  to  Ranchi  on  the  occasion of Holi, all the accused persons came and  passed  sarcastic  remarks  which  in  absence  of  actual  wordings,  according to the learned counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  could  never  be  presumed to be an act constituting offence under  section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”

10. In this appeal, both the appellants specifically asserted  

that they had never visited Ranchi, therefore, the allegations  

that they made any sarcastic remarks to the complainant had  

no basis or foundation as far as the appellants are concerned.  

11. The complainant could not dispute that appellant no.1  

was  a  permanent  resident  living  with  her  husband  at  

Navasari,  Surat, Gujarat for the last more than seven years  

and the appellant no.2 was permanent resident of Goregaon,  

Maharashtra.  They had never spent any time with respondent  

no.2.

6

12. According to the appellants, they are not the residents of  

Ranchi and if they are compelled to attend the Ranchi Court  

repeatedly  then  that  would  lead  to  insurmountable  

harassment and inconvenience to the appellants as well as to  

the complainant.

13. The complaint in this case under section 498-A IPC has  

led  to  several  other  cases.   It  is  mentioned  that  a  divorce  

petition has been filed by the  husband of  respondent  no.2.  

Both respondent no.2 and her husband are highly qualified  

and  are  working  with  reputed  organization  like  Tata  

Consultancy  Service.  If  because  of  temperamental  

incompatibility  they  cannot  live  with  each  other  then  it  is  

proper  that  they  should  jointly  get  a  decree  of  divorce  by  

mutual consent.  Both respondent no.2 and her husband are  

in such age group that if  proper efforts are made,  their  re-

settlement may not be impossible.

7

14. The main question which falls for consideration in this  

case is whether the High Court was justified in not exercising  

its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case?

15. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope  

and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 Cr.P.C.  Every  

High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do  

real and substantial justice, for the administration of which  

alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.  

Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;  

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and  

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.  

16. Reference  to  the  following  cases  would  reveal  that  the  

courts have consistently taken the view that they must use  

this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the  

ends of justice.  The English courts have also used inherent  

power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that  

the  Crown Court  has inherent  power  to  protect  its  process  

8

from abuse.  In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions  

[1964]  AC  1254,  Lord  Devlin  stated  that  where  particular  

criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court  

is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to  

trial.   Lord  Salmon  in  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions v.  

Humphrys [1977]  AC  1  stressed  the  importance  of  the  

inherent  power  when  he  observed  that  it  is  only  if  the  

prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court  

and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power  

to intervene.  He further mentioned that the court’s power to  

prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and  

should be jealously preserved.   

17. The powers possessed by the High Court under section  

482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the  

power requires great caution in its exercise.  The court must  

be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is  

based on sound principles.  The inherent power should not be  

exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court’s failing to  

use  the  power  for  advancement  of  justice  can  also  lead  to  

9

grave injustice.  The High Court should normally refrain from  

giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are  

incomplete  and  hazy;  more  so,  when  the  evidence  has  not  

been collected and produced before the court and the issues  

involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that  

they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient  

material.  Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in  

regard  to  cases  in  which  the  High  Court  will  exercise  its  

extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any  

stage.

18. This court had occasion to examine the legal position in a  

large number of cases.  In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR  

1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases  

where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash  

the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is  a  legal  bar  against  the  institution  or  continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where  the  allegations  in  the  first  information report or complaint taken at  their  face  value  and  accepted  in  their  entirety  do  not  constitute  the  offence  alleged;

10

(iii) where  the  allegations  constitute  an  offence,  but  there  is  no  legal  evidence  adduced or the evidence adduced clearly  or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

19. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy &  

Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power  

under section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a  

proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the  

proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of  

the  court  or  that  the  ends  of  justice  require  that  the  

proceeding ought to be quashed.  The High Courts have been  

invested  with  inherent  powers,  both  in  civil  and  criminal  

matters,  to  achieve  a  salutary  public  purpose.  A  court  

proceeding  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  degenerate  into  a  

weapon of harassment or persecution.  In this case, the court  

observed that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere  

law though justice  must  be  administered  according to  laws  

made by the legislature.  This case has been followed in a large  

number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.

11

20. In Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977)  

4 SCC 551, a three-Judge Bench of this court held as under:-

“…..In case the impugned order clearly brings  out  a  situation  which  is  an  abuse  of  the  process  of  the  court,  or  for  the  purpose  of  securing the ends of justice interference by the  High  Court  is  absolutely  necessary,  then  nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit  or affect the exercise of the inherent power by  the High Court.  Such cases would necessarily  be few and far between.  One such case would  be the desirability of the quashing of a criminal  proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as  being without jurisdiction.   The present case  would  undoubtedly  fall  for  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  High Court  in  accordance  with  Section 482 of the 1973 Code, even assuming,  that the invoking of the revisional power of the  High Court is impermissible.”

21. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others  

v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC  

692 observed in para 7 as under:

“7. The legal position is well  settled that when a  prosecution  at  the  initial  stage  is  asked  to  be  quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to  whether  the  uncontroverted  allegations  as  made  prima facie establish the offence.   It is also for the  court to take into consideration any special features  which  appear  in  a  particular  case  to  consider  whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice  to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on  the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any  

12

oblique  purpose  and  where  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  chances  of  an  ultimate  conviction  is  bleak  and,  therefore,  no  useful  purpose  is  likely  to  be  served  by  allowing  a  criminal  prosecution  to  continue,  the  court  may  while  taking  into  consideration the special facts of a case also quash  the  proceeding  even  though  it  may  be  at  a  preliminary stage.”  

22. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others  

1992  Supp.  (1)  SCC  335,  this  court  in  the  backdrop  of  

interpretation  of  various  relevant  provisions  of  the  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) under Chapter XIV and  

of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of  

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power  

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent  

powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories  

of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be  

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or  

otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  Thus, this court made  

it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise,  

clearly  defined  and  sufficiently  channelised  and  inflexible  

guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to  

13

myriad  kinds  of  cases  wherein  such  power  should  be  

exercised:

“(1)  Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  first  information  report  or  the  complaint,  even  if  they are taken at their face value and accepted  in their entirety do not prima facie constitute  any  offence  or  make  out  a  case  against  the  accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information  report  and  other  materials,  if  any,  accompanying  the  FIR  do  not  disclose  a  cognizable  offence,  justifying  an investigation  by police officers under Section 156(1) of the  Code  except  under  an  order  of  a  Magistrate  within  the  purview  of  Section  155(2)  of  the  Code.

(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.

(4) Where,  the  allegations  in  the  FIR  do  not  constitute a cognizable offence but constitute  only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation  is  permitted  by  a  police  officer  without  an  order of  a Magistrate  as contemplated under  Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where  the  allegations  made  in  the  FIR  or  complaint  are  so  absurd  and  inherently  improbable on the basis of which no prudent  person can ever reach a just conclusion that  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  proceeding  against the accused.

14

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted  in  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Code  or  the  concerned  Act  (under  which  a  criminal  proceeding is instituted) to the institution and  continuance of the proceedings and/or where  there is a specific provision in the Code or the  concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for  the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(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.”

23. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others  

(2000) 2 SCC 636,  this court observed that it is the duty and  

obligation  of  the  criminal  court  to  exercise  a  great  deal  of  

caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are  

essentially of civil nature.   

24. This  court  in  Zandu Pharmaceutical  Works  Ltd.  &  

Others  v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another  (2005) 1 SCC  

122 observed thus:-

“It  would  be  an abuse  of  process  of  the  court  to  allow any action which would result in injustice and  prevent  promotion  of  justice.  In  exercise  of  the  powers,  court  would  be  justified  to  quash  any  proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of  

15

it  amounts  to  abuse  of  the  process  of  court  or  quashing  of  these  proceedings  would  otherwise  serve  the  ends  of  justice.  When  no  offence  is  disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine  the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to  be  quashed,  it  is  permissible  to  look  into  the  materials  to  assess  what  the  complainant  has  alleged and whether any offence is made out even if  the allegations are accepted in toto.”

25. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J.  

was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan  

Goswami and Another v.  State of Uttaranchal & Others  

(2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position.  

The  court  came  to  a  definite  conclusion  and  the  relevant  

observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said  

judgment as under:-

“Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though  wide have to be exercised sparingly,  carefully and  with great caution and only when such exercise is  justified by the tests specifically laid down in this  section itself.  Authority of the court exists for the  advancement of justice.  If any abuse of the process  leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the  court,  then  the  Court  would  be  justified  in  preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in  absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”

16

26. We have very carefully considered the averments of the  

complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at  

the time of the filing of the complaint.  There are no specific  

allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of  

the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.

27. Admittedly,  appellant  no.1  is  a  permanent  resident  of  

Navasari,  Surat,  Gujarat  and  has  been  living  with  her  

husband for more than seven years.  Similarly, appellant no.2  

is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra.  They have  

never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken  

place.   They had never lived with respondent  no.2 and her  

husband.   Their  implication  in  the  complaint  is  meant  to  

harass and humiliate the husband’s relatives.  This seems to  

be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants.  

Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be  

an abuse of the process of law.

28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately  

matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country.  All  

the courts in our country including this court are flooded with  

17

matrimonial cases.  This clearly demonstrates discontent and  

unrest in the family life  of  a large number of  people of the  

society.

29. The  courts  are  receiving  a  large  number  of  cases  

emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which  

reads as under:-

“498-A.  Husband  or  relative  of  husband  of  a  woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being  the  husband  or  the  relative  of  the  husband  of  a  woman,  subjects  such woman to  cruelty  shall  be  punished with imprisonment for a term which may  extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  ‘cruelty’ means:- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature  

as  is  likely  to  drive  the  woman  to  commit  suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to  life,  limb  or  health  (whether  mental  or  physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment  of  the  woman  where  such  harassment is with a view to coercing her or  any person related to her to meet any unlawful  demand for any property or valuable security  or is on account of failure by her or any person  related to her to meet such demand.”

30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these  

complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the  

18

moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.  We  

come across a large number of such complaints which are not  

even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive.  At the same  

time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry  

harassment are also a matter of serious concern.   

31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social  

responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of  

family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that  

exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected  

in  the  criminal  complaints.   Majority  of  the  complaints  are  

filed  either  on  their  advice  or  with  their  concurrence.  The  

learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession  

must  maintain  its  noble  traditions  and  should  treat  every  

complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and  

must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at  

an amicable resolution of that human problem.  They must  

discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure  

that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains  

19

intact.  The members of the Bar should also ensure that one  

complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the  

implications and consequences are not properly visualized by  

the  complainant  that  such  complaint  can  lead  to  

insurmountable  harassment,  agony  and  pain  to  the  

complainant, accused and his close relations.  

33.   The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and  

punish the guilty and protect the innocent.  To find out the  

truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints.  The  

tendency  of  implicating  husband  and  all  his  immediate  

relations  is  also  not  uncommon.   At  times,  even  after  the  

conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real  

truth.  The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in  

dealing  with  these  complaints  and  must  take  pragmatic  

realities  into  consideration  while  dealing  with  matrimonial  

cases.   The  allegations  of  harassment  of  husband’s  close  

relations  who  had  been  living  in  different  cities  and  never  

20

visited  or  rarely  visited  the  place  where  the  complainant  

resided  would  have  an  entirely  different  complexion.   The  

allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with  

great care and circumspection.  Experience reveals that long  

and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and  

bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties.   It is also a  

matter  of  common  knowledge  that  in  cases  filed  by  the  

complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to  

remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of  

amicable  settlement  altogether.   The  process  of  suffering  is  

extremely long and painful.     

34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe  

that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by  

the legislation.  It is also a matter of common knowledge that  

exaggerated versions of  the  incident  are  reflected in a large  

number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also  

reflected in a very large number of cases.  

35. The  criminal  trials  lead  to  immense  sufferings  for  all  

concerned.   Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not  

21

be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy.  

Unfortunately a  large   number  of  these complaints have not  

only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social  

unrest affecting  peace, harmony and happiness of the society.  

It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration  

the  pragmatic  realities  and  make  suitable  changes  in  the  

existing law. It  is  imperative for  the legislature to take into  

consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic  

realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the  

relevant provisions of law.  We direct the Registry to send a  

copy  of  this  judgment  to  the  Law  Commission  and  to  the  

Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it  

before  the  Hon’ble  Minister  for  Law  &  Justice  to  take  

appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.  

36. When  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  are  

considered in  the  background of  legal  principles  set  out  in  

preceding paragraphs, then it would be unfair to compel the  

22

appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial.  In the  

interest  of  justice,  we  deem  it  appropriate  to  quash  the  

complaint against the appellants.  As a result, the impugned  

judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this  

appeal is allowed.

…….……………………..J.      (Dalveer Bhandari)

…….……………………..J.      (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi; August 13,  2010

23