Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4656 of 2011). Case: Kailash Chandra Agrawal Vs State of U.P.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4656 of 2011) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shekhar Kumar, Adv. and For Respondents: Shomila Bakshi, Mona K. Rajvanshi and M.R. Shamshad, Advs. |
| Judges | V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ. |
| Issue | Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 6; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 406; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 200, 202, 482 |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Goel, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 2nd May, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad declining to quash the proceedings against the Appellants Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The case of the complainant in the FIR registered on 4th May, 2010 in the Bhelupur Police Station at Varanasi is that her marriage was solemnised on 30th April, 2005. Her brothers who lived abroad gave lot of dowry and cash in the marriage but her family could not fulfil more demands raised by the elder brother of her husband's father, who was the head of the joint family on account of which family members of her husband were not satisfied and tortured her. On account of torture, she came to her parents house with her child on 1st March, 2009 she gave a complaint on 27th April, 2010 leading to registration of the FIR on 4th May, 2010. She also filed complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. In the said complaint, the Appellants were summoned vide Order dated 30th November, 2010.
4. Aggrieved by the said summons, the Appellants moved the High Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure.) with the plea that the summoning was not justified as neither they were named in the FIR got registered by the complainant nor any individual role was attributed to them in the criminal complaint. Their relationship with the husband of the complainant was remote as grand father of the Appellant No. 1 was brother of grand father of the husband of the complainant. In such remote relationship, the Appellants will have no interest in raising any demand for dowry or causing any harassment to the complainant. Their implication was thus, clear abuse of the process of the Court.
5. The High Court dismissed the petition with the observation that the statement of the complainant Under Sections 200 and 202, Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed the commission of offence and thus there was no illegality in the order of summoning.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that marriage took place in the year 2005 and a child was born on 15th January, 2009. Complaint was filed in the year 2010 after filing of divorce petition by the husband of the complainant on 24th April, 2010. In the FIR, initially filed, there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial