whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – No

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 602 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8074 of 2018)
Tabrez Khan @ Guddu & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

  1. Leave granted.
  2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
    and order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application
    No.3514 of 2018 whereby the High Court declined
    to quash Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 as well
    1
    as the summoning order dated 10.03.2017 passed
    by the ACJM, Court No.8, Varanasi in the aforesaid
    case.
  3. A few facts need mention for the disposal of
    this appeal, which involves a short point.
  4. Respondent No.2 was married to one
    Mohammad Pervez in the year 2000. Appellant
    No.3 is the mother of Mohammad Pervez and
    mother­in­law of respondent No.2. Appellant Nos.1
    and 2 are the brothers of Mohammad Pervez and
    brothers­in­law of respondent No. 2.
  5. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint case
    against the appellants and also against her
    husband­Mohammad Pervez in the Court of ACJM
    Court No.8, Varanasi complaining therein for the
    commission of the offences alleged to have been
    committed by the appellants qua respondent No.2
    under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
    2
    Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
    read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act. This case is
    still pending.
  6. On receipt of the summons of the said
    complaint, the appellants felt aggrieved and they
    filed an application under Section 482 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.) in
    the High Court and sought quashing of complaint
    and the order issuing summons of the complaint to
    them.
  7. By impugned order, the High Court declined to
    quash Complaint Case No.3065 of 2016 and also
    declined to quash the summoning order dated
    10.03.2017 passed by the ACJM, Court No.8,
    Varanasi in the aforesaid case which has given rise
    to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this
    Court by the appellants.
    3
  8. So, the short question, which arises for
    consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
    Court was justified in rejecting the application filed
    by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
  9. Heard Mr. Amit Pawan, learned counsel for the
    appellants and Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG for
    respondent No.1­State. None appeared for
    respondent No.2 despite service on her.
  10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
    appellants and respondent No.1 and on perusal of
    the record of the case, we are inclined to allow this
    appeal, set aside the impugned order, allow the
    application filed by the appellants under Section
    482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the aforementioned
    complaint filed by respondent No.2 insofar as it
    relates to the appellants.
    4
  11. We have gone through the averments made in
    the complaint and on its perusal, we do not find any
    justification to proceed against the appellants.
  12. In other words, in our view, there does not
    appear to be any justification or/and prima facie
    case to proceed against the appellants either jointly
    or severally for commission of the offences alleged
    against them in the complaint. Indeed, the facts
    stated against the appellants in the complaint do
    not constitute any case as alleged against any of
    them.
  13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
    succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned
    order is set aside. As a consequence, the complaint
    filed by respondent No.2 against the appellants is
    hereby quashed.
  14. We, however, make it clear that the complaint
    qua Mohammad Pervez Khan­husband of
    5
    respondent No.2 will be decided on its merit by the
    concerned Magistrate in accordance with law
    uninfluenced by any observations made by this
    Court because we have not examined the case of
    respondent No.2 qua her husband, who is neither a
    party to these proceedings and nor he has filed any
    petition to challenge the complaint filed against
    him.
    .……………………………………..J.
    [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
    ……………………………………….J.
    [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
    New Delhi;
    April 05, 2019
    6