ABHISHEKversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

               [2023] 11 S.C.R. 507 : 2023 INSC 779



                            CASE DETAILS
                               ABHISHEK
                                     v.
                   STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 1457 of 2015)
                           AUGUST 31, 2023
          [ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR AND
                   S. V. N. BHATTI, JJ.]

                             HEADNOTES

      Issue for consideration: The question pertains to quashing of the FIR
and the Criminal Case pending before the magistrate against the appellants,
mother-in-law and two brother-in-laws u/s. 498A IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
     Penal Code 1860 – s. 498A – Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 – ss. 3
and 4 – Harassment for dowry – In the midst of matrimonial dispute
between husband and wife, complaint by wife-daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law and brother-in-laws alleging that they subjected her
to mental and physical harassment for dowry – Quashing of criminal
proceedings:
      Held: There were certain glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies –
Wife after leaving her matrimonial home did not choose to make a complaint
against her in-laws in relation to dowry harassment for four year till the
husband instituted divorce proceedings – Her allegations are mostly general
and omnibus in nature, without any specific details as to how and when
her in-laws, who lived in different cities subjected her to harassment for
dowry – Complaint shows that her motives were not clean and she clearly
wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws – Allegations are wholly
insufficient and, prima facie, and do not make out a case – They are so
farfetched and improbable that no prudent person can conclude that there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against them – Permitting the criminal
process to go on against the in-laws would, thus, result in clear and patent

                                    507
508          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 11 S.C.R.


injustice – Thus, a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power
u/s. 482 to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings – FIR and the
criminal case against the in-laws are quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s. 482. [Paras 18-23]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR –
When chargesheet was filed by the police while the petition filed u/s.
482 was pending – Power of the High Court:
      Held: High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and
act upon a petition filed u/s. 482 to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet
is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition. [Para 11]

       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

      Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59
: [2011] 8 SCR 815; Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), Department of Home and another (2019) 11 SCC 706 : [2018]
13 SCR 1028; V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented by Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others (2019) 14 SCC 568
: [2018] 14 SCR 828; M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra and others Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on
13.04.2021; R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 : [1960] SCR
388; State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others (1992) Supp
(1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam
and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2022) 6 SCC 599; Preeti Gupta
and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667 : [2010]
9 SCR 1168; Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 :
[2009] 14 SCR 1074; Mahmood Ali and others vs. State of U.P. and others
Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023 – referred to.

       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1457 of 2015.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2015 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in MCRC No. 2647 of 2014.
         ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                          509


     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of 2015.
     Appearances:
    Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Anmol Kheta, Dushyant Dahiya, Kumar
Kashyap, Kausar Husain, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Abhinav Shrivastava, Sunny Choudhary, Dr. Sasmit Patra, R. P. Singh,
Shivang Rawat, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Nidhi, Mohit Girdhar, Sarthak
Arora, Advs. for the Respondent.

       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                             JUDGMENT
     SANJAY KUMAR, J.
      1. Bhawna, the second respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1456 of
2015, married Nimish Gour in the year 2007. He, however, secured a decree
of divorce on 05.09.2019 dissolving their marriage. Bhawna preferred First
Appeal No. 1876 of 2019 against the said divorce decree and the same is
stated to be pending consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The appellants in the present appeals were Bhawna’s in-laws. Kusum Lata
was her mother-in-law while Abhishek and Sourabh were her brothers-in-
law.
      2. Bhawna married Nimish on 02.07.2007. Their marriage was an
arranged one and was performed at Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Bhawna was
a teacher by profession. Nimish was working in the film industry at Mumbai
and was engaged in film editing. After their marriage, the couple left for
Mumbai on 08.07.2007. Bhawna is stated to have visited her in-laws in
Madhya Pradesh on 3 or 4 occasions only, including the Deepavali festival
in 2008. Admittedly, Bhawna parted ways with her matrimonial home at
Mumbai on 25.02.2009, be it on her own volition or otherwise, and started
residing with her parents at Narsinghpur. At that time, Kusum Lata had
submitted representation dated 24.02.2009 to Police Station Heera Nagar
at Indore, apprehending that Bhawna may make allegations against them
about harassing her for dowry.
    3. Prior to the filing of the divorce petition by Nimish on 08.05.2013,
Bhawna made a written complaint on 05.02.2013 to Police Station Kotwali,
510          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 11 S.C.R.


District Narsinghpur, levelling several allegations against her husband and
her in-laws. The same was sent to the jurisdictional police station at Heera
Nagar, Indore. In consequence, FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 09.02.2013 was
registered on the file of P.S. Heera Nagar, Indore, against all four of them
under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961. All three appellants secured anticipatory bail on 06.03.2013 in relation
to FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 from the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore, vide Bail Application No. 634 of 2013.
      4. The appellants then moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Kusum Lata and Sourabh filed M.Cr.C. No. 6585 of
2013 while M.Cr.C. No. 2647 of 2014 was filed by Abhishek, praying for
quashing of FIR No. 56 of 2013 dated 09.02.2013 insofar as they were
concerned. During the pendency of these cases, the police completed their
investigation and filed a charge sheet against all the four accused. The same
was taken on file in Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Indore. Thereupon, Kusum Lata and Sourabh filed an
application on 13.08.2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 6585 of 2013 laying a challenge
to the charge sheet and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014.
However, by separate orders dated 03.03.2015, the Madhya Pradesh High
Court dismissed both the quash petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants
are before this Court by way of these appeals by special leave.
     5. By common order dated 30.10.2015 passed in both the appeals, this
Court stayed further proceedings qua the appellants.
      6. In her written complaint dated 05.02.2013 made to P.S. Kotwali,
District Narsinghpur, Bhawna spoke of her marriage being solemnized
with Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and stated that her parents had given
₹ 3,50,000/- in cash, one gold necklace, ear-set, anklets of silver, Bichua
(toe-rings), costly sarees and clothes. She further stated that her relatives
had separately given her a gold chain, Nath, Bindi etc., several jewellery
items and other gifts. She alleged that her mother-in-law and brother-in-
law, Abhishek, got a list prepared of all the gifts and took the same, saying:
‘Bhabi, we will keep them in a Bank Locker as you do not have a house
in Mumbai and you will not be able to keep them’. She stated that she
went to Mumbai along with her husband on 08.07.2007. She made several
allegations about how she was ill-treated by her husband at Mumbai. Those
allegations are of no relevance presently, as we are not concerned with
          ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              511
                  [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

Nimish. Bhawna went on to state that her husband and mother-in-law had
complaints with her and her parents on the issue of dowry and that they
started harassing her mentally even on minor issues and started using wrong
and intolerable words for her parents, brothers and sister. She stated that,
one day, she was wearing a maxi while applying mehendi to her hair and
upon seeing this, her mother-in-law said - Bhawna is wearing a maxi so she
should be undressed and made to dance on the street. She alleged that her
mother-in-law made a demand for a gold chain, ear-rings, ring and other
gold jewellery in dowry at the time of the marriage. She also alleged that
at the time of his own marriage, her brother-in-law, Abhishek, demanded
a car and additional two lakh rupees from her and her parents. They did
not have so much money and could not give a car and ₹ 2,00,000/- and her
in-laws said that if you cannot bring the money then live in your parental
house. She further stated that her mother-in-law’s house at Indore was like
a paying guest accommodation, where one or the other student was always
living, and there was no room for her to stay. She alleged that they treated
her also like a paying guest and harassed her physically, mentally, socially
and emotionally with their demands for dowry. She then spoke of how she
found her husband’s diary at Mumbai in which he had mentioned details
of his physical relations with several other women and when she narrated
the same to her mother-in-law and brother-in-law at the time of Deepavali
in 2008, they said that she had spoilt the festival by telling such things
and that she should never come on Deepavali day. She stated that she was
thrown out of the house by her husband on 25.02.2009. She further stated
that upon her many requests, Nimish came to the marriage of her brother
on 17.06.2012, but again asked her about the arrangement for money. Upon
being told of their inability to arrange money, he told her relatives either
to fulfil the demand for money or get him freed from her. She said that her
father, mother and brother developed health problems owing to these issues
and requested that strict legal action be taken against Nimish, Kusum Lata,
Sourabh and Abhishek, for harassing her mentally and physically for dowry
and to do her justice.
      7. In her statement dated 08.09.2013 made before P.S. Heera Nagar,
Bhawna stated that her marriage with Nimish was performed on 02.07.2007
at Nandan Garden in Indore and her parents had given gold and silver
jewellery, clothes, cash etc., exceeding their status and spent about ₹ 5 lakhs
for the marriage. She said that her husband and she went to Mumbai on
512          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 11 S.C.R.


07.07.2007. She made various allegations against her husband which are
of no significance presently, as he is not before us. As regards her in-laws,
she said that her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and brothers-in-law, Abhishek
and Sourabh, used to harass her mentally and physically to bring ₹ 2 lakhs
in cash, a car and jewellery in dowry from her parents and due to this,
her parents fell ill and were being treated. She alleged that all her in-laws
wanted a divorce from her forcibly and nobody wanted to talk to her after
she came away from her matrimonial home. She alleged that Abhishek,
who was a judge, was misusing his official position and he was the reason
for obstructions in legal proceedings.
       8. Om Prakash, Bhawna’s father, also made a statement before the
police on 08.09.2013 on the same lines. He said that her marriage was
performed at Indore on 02.07.2007 and as per his stat0us, he had given
cash, gold, jewellery, clothes etc., totalling to ₹ 5 lakhs, in dowry. He said
that, whenever Bhawna came to meet them, she used to tell him and all
the neighbours that her husband, Nimish, mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and
brothers-in-law, Abhishek and Sourabh, used to tell her that her father had
given nothing in dowry and when she went to her parental home, she should
bring ₹ 2 lakhs in cash, a car and gold jewellery. He stated that they had been
harassing his daughter mentally and physically for dowry. He alleged that,
on Karvachauth day, Bhawna’s mother-in-law had demanded 100 sarees
but he had refused. Renubala, Bhawna’s mother, also made a statement
on 08.09.2013 on identical lines. Two of their neighbours, Sushila Bai and
Mohan, also gave statements on the same day, supporting Bhawna’s version.
According to them, whenever Bhawna came to meet her parents, she used
to tell them that her in-laws were torturing her mentally and physically for
dowry. On the other hand, Shailendra and Radhey Shyam, who lived in
the neighbourhood where Nimish’s father had his residence, stated to the
effect that there were no demands made of Bhawna or her family for dowry
and that she was never harassed on that ground. In their final report dated
20.09.2013, the police merely replicated the contents of the FIR and added
nothing further on the strength of their investigation.
      9. Certain other facts are also of pertinence and may be noted.
Abhishek entered judicial service as a Civil Judge six or seven months
after the marriage of Bhawna with Nimish. He was posted at Ujjain and,
thereafter, at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh. Kusum Lata used to reside with
          ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                             513
                  [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

Abhishek. Saurabh, Bhawna’s other brother-in-law, is an architect and was
working at Delhi since the year 2007. Nimish made written representations
to the police authorities at Narsinghpur on 09.09.2012 and 17.11.2012
complaining of intimidation by and at the behest of Bhawna. Prior thereto,
an anonymous complaint was made to the Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh
High Court, against Abhishek, making scandalous allegations to the effect
that he was undeserving of judicial office. A complaint was also made to the
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, purportedly in the name of one Sanyogita
Mishra. Again, the allegations therein were directed against Abhishek.
      10. Notably, the examination-in-chief of Bhawna on 27.10.2018 in
Nimish’s divorce petition in Civil Suit No. 153A of 2015 on the file of the
Family Court, Narsinghpur, is made available. Therein, she asserted that her
entire stridhan jewellery was with Nimish and in spite of repeated demands,
he was not returning it to her as he wanted to snatch her jewellery. Further,
during her cross-examination therein, she admitted that she had made a
complaint to the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Abhishek. She however
denied making any such complaint to the Anti-Corruption Unit at Mumbai.
      11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset
that the contention that the appellants’ quash petition against the FIR was
liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto
was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be
rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the
power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the
pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and
others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar
Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home
and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706].This issue, therefore, needs no further
elucidation on our part.
     12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar vs. State represented
by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and
others [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused
seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High
Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual
arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. In M/s.
514          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 11 S.C.R.


Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others
[Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench
of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases,
such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context
of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/
complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters
of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, and more particularly,
the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and
others [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to
quash the FIR/complaint.
      13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash
criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of
matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents
aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and
others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had
occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused
to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC.
Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether
allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations
which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions
wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and
the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of
that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the
in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the
absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse
of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an
eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an
exercise ought to be discouraged.
          ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                               515
                  [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

      14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the
husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints
filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were
living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such
allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
      15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC
184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and
the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’
of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is
the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the
role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence.
These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute
involving Section 498A IPC.
      16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali
and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023,
decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section
482 Cr.P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the
High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground
that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted
with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances,
the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose
of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging
from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be,
with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
516          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 11 S.C.R.


     17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration,
the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:
      ‘102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
      provisions of the Code 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 or the inherent
      powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
      reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way
      of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
      abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
      justice, though 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 of 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
          ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              517
                  [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

           prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
           sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
           (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
           the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.’
      18. Applying the aforestated edicts to the case on hand, we may take
note of certain glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies. Though Bhawna
had earlier alleged that her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and her brother-in-
law, Abhishek, had taken away all her jewellery after her marriage on the
pretext of safekeeping, she specifically stated in her deposition before the
Family Court, Narsinghpur, in Civil Suit No. 153A of 2015, that her entire
stridhan jewellery was with Nimish and in spite of repeated demands, he
was not returning it to her. Further, during her cross-examination therein, she
admitted that she had made a complaint to the High Court against Abhishek.
The complaint was styled as an anonymous one, but Bhawna voluntarily
owned up to being its author. This aspect bears out her animosity against
her in-laws and more particularly, Abhishek.
      19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that
Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws
in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to
make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year
2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence
of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were
made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in
February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007
at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction
with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and
is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at
518          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 11 S.C.R.


Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever made against
him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to the effect
that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific
instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to
such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer
6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no occasion to be
with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when
she came to visit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges
that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and
her parents should provide him with a car and ₹.2 lakhs in cash. Why he
would make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit
such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is
rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna
confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High Court
clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law,
Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against
her in-laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-law,
Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is
wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.
      20. We may also note that Bhawna herself claimed that Nimish came
to her brother’s wedding in 2012, but she has no details to offer with regard
to any harassment for dowry being meted out to her by her mother-in-law
and her brothers-in-law after 2009. As noted earlier, even for that period
also, her allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, without any
specific details as to how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law,
who lived in different cities altogether, subjected her to harassment for dowry.
     21. Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did nothing
whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed
a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her
husband instituted divorce proceedings.
     22. Given the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the
considered opinion that Bhawna’s allegations against the appellants, such
as they are, are wholly insufficient and, prima facie, do not make out a
case against them. Further, they are so farfetched and improbable that no
prudent person can conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed
           ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                              519
                   [SANJAY KUMAR, J.]

against them. In effect, the case on hand falls squarely in categories (1) and
(5) set out in Bhajan Lal (supra). Permitting the criminal process to go on
against the appellants in such a situation would, therefore, result in clear and
patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential
proceedings.
      23. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
     FIR No. 56 of 2013 and Criminal Case No. 11954 of 2014 pending
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, shall stand
quashed insofar as the appellants, Kusum Lata, Abhishek Gour and Sourabh
Gour, are concerned.
      Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeals allowed.
Nidhi Jain