Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.     1182-1184       OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) 6091-6093 of 2009)

Vijeta Gajra … Appellant

Versus

State of NCT Of Delhi     … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein challenges the order passed by the High  

Court  whereby the  petition  filed  by her  was  dismissed.   The said  

petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read  

with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the  

1

FIR No. 138/08 dated 07.08.2008 for offences under Section 498A  

and 406, Indian Penal Code in the Chitranjan Park Police Station.   

3. This FIR was lodged by one Gunjan Sujanani, wife of one Rohit  

Sujanani.   It  is  a  long document  wherein  the  complainant  Gunjan  

Sujanani stated about her marriage with Rohit on 08.07.2003 and he  

being a resident of Nigeria.  It was claimed that before the marriage,  

Rohit  had  introduced  Gunjan  to  one  Mr.  Sham  and  Mrs.  Lavina  

Daswani as his foster parents and also said that he had two foster  

sisters,  namely,  Vijeta  Daswani  (Vijeta  Gajra-the  appellant  herein)  

who is a resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the other being one  

Ms. Ritika Daswani, who resided with her mother in London.  There  

are  allegations  made  about  the  demand  of  dowry  against  the  

husband  as  also  Mrs.  Lavina  Daswani.  The  demand  included  

diamond neckless for Vijeta Daswani/Gajra.  There was reference to  

subsequent behaviour of troubling the complainant on account of the  

dowry  demands.   The  First  Information  Report  also  made  some  

allegations regarding the relations of her husband Rohit Sujanani with  

Mrs.  Lavina  Daswani  and  Vijeta  Daswani/Gajra,  the  present  

appellant.  It was then contended that in December, 2003, when the  

complainant had gone to Sierra Leone, Vijeta Dasawani/Gajra took  

2

away  her  diamond  encrusted  heavy  gold  pendant  and  chain  and  

earring set on the pretext that she wanted to wear them once and she  

would  keep  them  at  a  safe  place  in  her  father’s  house.  The  

complainant  also  stated  that  she  did  not  return  these  ornaments.  

Further, it was stated that in May, 2004, Mr. Rohit Sujanani and Mrs.  

Lavina  Daswani  insisted  that  the  complainant  should  keep  her  

jewellery  in  London  and  claimed  that  she  was  slapped  by  her  

husband on her refusal.   It  was further claimed that  in November,  

2004, the present appellant, Vijeta Gajra got married during which the  

complainant had to beg for her ornaments for attending the marriage.  

There was a reference in the FIR to the misbehaviour on the part of  

Mrs. Lavina Daswani towards her and again the name of the present  

appellant figured therein.  At this time, the complainant claimed that  

she was pregnant for the first time and yet she was given physical  

and mental ill  treatment because of which she had a mis-carriage.  

There is a reference to the sexual  behaviour  of  her  husband with  

reference  to  a  pornographic  website.   It  was  claimed  that  the  

complainant delivered a baby on 08.03.2007. Then there is reference  

to the appellant visiting and staying with the complainant’s parents for  

three days and the allegation that her husband was having sexual  

3

relations  with  Vijeta  Gajra,  the  appellant  herein  and  Mrs.Lavina  

Daswani.  There was a reference that during her stay the appellant  

was  wearing  the  diamond  encrusted  pendant  and  gold  chain  and  

earring set which she had taken (practically stolen) in Sierra Leone.   

4. In the last part of this lengthy FIR, there was a reference to the  

demand of two crores of rupees having been made by Vijeta and her  

mother over the phone to the complainant as a cost of peace and  

marital  happiness.   There  was  a  reference  to  a  telephonic  

conversation with Mrs. Lavina Daswani in this regard.   There was a  

further  reference  to  an  ugly  scene  on  account  of  arguments.  

However, there was also a reference to the presence of the brother of  

the  complainant  on  account  of  which  further  ugly  scenes  were  

avoided.  It was complained that, thereafter, the complainant and her  

parents tried to contact Rohit Sujanani and the Daswanis who were  

avoiding  them  and  not  returning  jewellery  which  was  with  Vijeta  

Gajra, Lavina Daswani and Rohit Sujanani.   

5. This  complaint  dated  15.04.2008  seems  to  have  been  

registered as an FIR.  It  seems that  on the basis of  this FIR, the  

appellant was sent a summons under Section 160, Cr. P.C. and she  

4

moved  the  Court  of  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  New Delhi  under  

Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.  In that application,  

she had made a reference to the summons asking her to appear on  

05.06.2008.  It was claimed in the application that the complainant’s  

husband Rohit Sujanani was an employee of appellant’s father who  

has business in Sierra Leone and that he was employed on contract  

basis for the period of three years in 1994.  It was claimed in that  

application that the appellant had met the complainant last in 2007.  It  

was also stated that the allegations made in the FIR were concocted,  

false and baseless and she had no connection whatsoever with the  

family of the complainant or her parents.  She complained that her  

own marriage was being tried to be destroyed by wild  allegations.  

There was a reference made in this application by the appellant for  

quashing the summons arising out of the complaint dated 15.04.2008  

and also to a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2153 of 2008. The  

High Court  had passed the order  disposing it  of  since the State’s  

Counsel had agreed to provide copy of the complaint and had further  

stated that in the event the FIR was registered, the applicant would  

be  informed  of  this  fact  and  no  coercive  action  would  be  taken  

against her till then. In her application there was a statement that she  

5

did not even belong to the family of the complainant, her husband or  

any of their relatives and that all the allegations were palpably false.  

It was then stated that the writ petition was filed which came to be  

disposed of by the High Court.  It seems that the complainant sought  

the direction to implead herself in the writ petition-cum-Section 482  

Cr.P.C application filed by the appellant.   

6. Following are the prayers in the said writ petition under Article  

226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C.:

“a)  Quash  the  FIR  NO.  138/2008  dated  07.08.2008 under Sections 498A/406, IPC at Police  Station  Chitranjan  Park  registered  against  the  petitioner;

b) Direct the police not to take any coercive  action against the petitioner in respect of the above  said complaint:

c) Pass such other and further orders which  may  be  deemed  fit  and  proper  in  the  facts  and  circumstances of the case.”

It is on this backdrop that we have to see as to whether it would  

be  expedient  to  continue  the  criminal  prosecution  against  the  

appellant.   

6

7. Shri U.U. Lalit, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of  

the appellant argued that in  U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector of  

Police & Anr.  [(2009) 6 SCC 757],  it  was specifically held that in  

order  to  be  covered  under  Section  498A,  IPC  one  has  to  be  a  

‘relative’ of the husband by blood, marriage or adoption.  He pointed  

out that the present appellant was not in any manner a ‘relative’ as  

referred to in Section 498A, IPC and, therefore, there is no question  

of  any  allegation  against  her  in  respect  of  the  ill-treatment  of  the  

complainant.   The Court  in  this  case examined the ingredients  of  

Section 498A, IPC and noting the specific language of the Section  

and the Explanation thereof  came to the conclusion that  the word  

‘relative’ would not include a paramour or concubine or so.  Relying  

on the dictionary meaning of the word ‘relative’ and further relying on  

R. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advance Law Lexicon, Volume 4, 3rd Edition,  

the  Court  went  on  to  hold  that  Section  498A,  IPC being  a  penal  

provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual  

meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to  

be construed strictly.  On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment  

in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [(2007) 7 SCC 162].  A reference was made  

to the decision in  Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P.   

7

[(2007) 15 SCC 369].   After quoting from various decisions of this  

Court,  it  was  held  that  reference  to  the  word  ‘relative’  in  Section  

498A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations  

by marriage.   

8. Relying heavily on this,  Shri  Lalit  contended that  there is no  

question of any trial  of the appellant for the offence under Section  

498A, IPC.  The argument is undoubtedly correct, though opposed by  

the Learned Counsel appearing for the State. We are of the opinion  

that there will be no question of her prosecution under Section 498A,  

IPC.   Learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

complainant, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, also did not seriously dispute this  

proposition.  Therefore, we hold that the FIR insofar as it concerned  

Section 498A, IPC, would be of no consequence and the appellant  

shall not be tried for the offence under Section 498A, IPC.

9. That leaves us with the allegation under Section 406, IPC for  

the  offence  of  criminal  breach  of  trust  as  there  are  allegations  in  

respect  of  the  jewellery.   We  desist  from  saying  anything  at  this  

juncture.  We also desist from going into the correctness or otherwise  

of these allegations as they will have to be proved by evidence.  Shri  

8

Lalit  pointed out that on the face of it  the allegations are wild and  

baseless as the appellant herself comes from a wealthy background  

and  is  a  married  lady  having  settled  down in  Indore  and  is  also  

mother of a child.  He pointed that the FIR is calculated to destroy her  

marital  life with  the wildest  possible  allegations and,  therefore,  we  

should quash the entire FIR as not being bona fide and actuated by  

malice.   

10. There can be no doubt that the allegations made are extremely  

wild and disgusting.  However, how far those allegations can be used  

to meet the requirements for the offence under Section 406, IPC is a  

moot question.  For obvious reasons, we will not go into that exercise.  

Whatever the form in which the allegations under Section 406, IPC  

are made, the fact of the matter is that there is an FIR and the Court  

concerned  has  taken  cognizance  thereof.   Under  these  

circumstances, we would only protect the interest of the appellant by  

directing that she would not be required to attend the proceedings  

unless specifically directed by the Court to do so and that too in the  

case of extreme necessity. Similarly, no coercive step shall be taken  

against her. She shall be granted bail by the Court trying the case if it  

9

decides to try  the offence by framing the charge.   We expect  the  

Court to be careful while considering the framing of charge.

11. We,  therefore,  hold  that  the  appellant  shall  not  be  tried  for  

offence under Section 498A, IPC.  However, we desist from quashing  

the FIR altogether in view of the allegations made under Section 406,  

IPC with the protection that we have granted to the appellant.  With  

these observations, the appeals are disposed of.

………………………….J.  [V.S. Sirpurkar]

    .………………………….J.      [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi; July 8, 2010.

1

1