2024 INSC 896

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022)

Payal Sharma …Appellant(s)

Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. …Respondent(s)

With

Criminal Appeal No. of 2024

(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023)

Subhash Chander Kapila …Appellant(s)

Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Leave granted.
1. The captioned appeals are directed against the
order dated 11.03.2022 in C.R.M.-M. No.42226 of 2021
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by Dr.

Naveen Rawal
Date: 2024.11.26
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
13:43:35 IST
Reason:

Page 1 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
Chandigarh. The said petition was jointly filed by the
appellant in the former appeal and her husband, the
second respondent in the latter appeal, under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘Cr.P.C.’) as petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively, seeking
quashment of FIR No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020
registered for offences punishable under Sections 406,
498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) at
Police Station, District Police Commissionerate, Women,
Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom. In fact, after the registration of FIR
No.0080/2020 at the instance of Subhash Chander Kapila,
the second respondent in the former appeal, offences
under Sections 420 and 120-B, IPC were also added. The
appellant in the former appeal is accused No.5 and her
husband, the second respondent in the latter appeal, was
accused No.6 in the said FIR. The appellant in the latter
appeal viz., the second respondent in the former appeal
is the complainant. For convenient sake, the parties are
therefore, referred to hereafter in this judgment in
accordance with their status and rank in the subject FIR
and subsequently filed final report, unless otherwise
specifically mentioned. In other words, the appellant in
the former appeal is described as ‘accused No.5’, her

Page 2 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
husband who is the second respondent in the latter
appeal is referred to as ‘accused No.6’ and the appellant
in the latter appeal, who is respondent No.2 in the former
appeal is referred to as ‘the complainant’, in this
judgment.
2. As per the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2022,
the High Court allowed CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 qua
accused No.6, the husband of accused No.5 and quashed
FIR No.0080 dated 03.12.2020 and all proceedings
subsequent thereto qua him and at the same time,
dismissed the said petition qua accused No.5, the second
petitioner therein. The former appeal is filed by accused
No.5 against CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 to the extent it
rejected her prayer for quashment of subject FIR and all
further proceedings and the latter appeal is filed by the
complainant against the quashment of the subject FIR
and all further proceedings therefrom qua accused No.6.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for accused
Nos.5 and 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent State and also for the complainant.
4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is
appropriate to look into the relationship between the
parties involved in the matter. The couple involved (now
divorced) is the first accused-Amit Sharma and Vandana

Page 3 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
Sharma, who is the daughter of the complainant.
Accused No.6 is the cousin brother of the first accused
and as already noted, accused No.5 is his wife.
5. The undisputed and indisputable facts, in succinct,
that led to the filing of CRM-M No.42226 of 2021 before
the High Court are as under: -

The marriage between the first accused-Amit

Sharma and Vandana Sharma was solemnized on
23.02.2019. On 07.03.2019, the first accused-Amit
Sharma left for Canada and Vandana Sharma stayed
back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar in Punjab with
her in-laws. On 02.12.2019, Vandana Sharma also left for
Canada. On 22.09.2020, Amit Sharma approached the
Family Court, Canada seeking divorce from his wife
Vandana Sharma. The lodgement of the subject FIR
No.0080/2020 dated 03.12.2020 by the complainant who
is the father of Vandana Sharma, alleging commission of
the aforementioned offences under the IPC against all
the accused including accused Nos.5 and 6, was later to
initiation of the said proceedings. It was in the said
circumstances that accused Nos.5 and 6 filed CRM-M
No.42226 of 2021 before the High Court raising various
grounds, which culminated in the impugned order.

Page 4 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
6. The contention of accused No.5 is that she is only
the wife of the cousin brother of the first accused, who
was the husband of the daughter of the complainant.
Accused No.5 has been residing with her husband at
Mohali in Punjab whereas the daughter of the
complainant Smt. Vandana was residing in her
matrimonial home at Jalandhar in Punjab and in other
words that they were residing in different cities. The
subject FIR carries only allegations of general, ominous
and omnibus character against herself, and her husband
and they were arraigned as accused only with mala fide
intention to pressurise to yield to the illegal demands. It
is submitted that though the High Court has rightly
quashed the FIR and all consequential and subsequential
proceedings against accused No.6, the fact that accused
No.5 is related to the first accused, the husband of the
complainant’s daughter only through accused No.6 and
except the exaggerated versions, as in the case of her
husband, no specific and separate allegation with
supporting materials are available against her and as
such the High Court ought not to have dismissed the
petition especially after allowing the very same petition
as relates her husband. Contentions, unsuccessful
raised before the High Court were also, thus raised.

Page 5 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has
reiterated the contentions raised before the High Court,
to support the impugned order. The impugned order
would reveal that while resisting the prayer of accused
No.5 for quashing the FIR and all subsequent
proceedings therefrom, it was contended before the
High Court that specific allegations were raised against
her and challan was submitted and the matter was listed
for framing charges and hence, all the pleas could be
raised by her before the trial Court. Evidently, the said
contention is untaken, but the High Court held, as relates
her, in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, thus: -

“7. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and

after carefully perusing the record, this Court
finds that there are specific allegations qua
petitioner No.2 and thus, at this stage it will not be
a case to quash the FIR qua her. Resultantly, the
present petition qua petitioner No.2 stands
dismissed.”

8. In view of the aforementioned rival contentions, we

bestowed an analytical consideration and found that
besides the afore-extracted paragraph 7 there is
absolutely no consideration of the contentions of the

Page 6 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
appellant in the impugned judgment. We have already
noticed that the accused No.5 is only the wife of the
cousin brother of the husband of the complainant’s
daughter, and she was living in another city along with
her husband. In view of the aforesaid undisputed
position, it is relevant to refer to certain decisions of this
Court.
9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of
Jharkhand & Anr.1, this Court observed that it is a matter
of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes
exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a
large number of complaints and the tendency of over
implication is also reflected in a large number of cases.
The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all
concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also
not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of
ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no
hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court
is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of
the duty to see whether implication of a person who is
not a close relative of the family of the husband is over
implication or whether allegation against any such

1
(2010) 7 SCC 667

Page 7 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial
disputes of this nature. In this context, it is to be noted
that the term ‘relative’ has not been defined in the statute
and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is
commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken
to include, father, mother, husband or wife, son,
daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or
granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any
person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by
blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti
Gupta’s case (supra) it was furthermore held thus: -
“…The courts have to be extremely careful and
cautious in dealing with these complaints and
must take pragmatic realties into consideration
while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by husband’s close
relatives who had been living in different cities
and never visited or rarely visited the place where
the complainant resided would have an entirely
different complexion. The allegations of the
complainant are required to be scrutinized with
great care and circumspection.”

10. In such circumstances, normally against a person

who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories
when allegations are raised, in the light of the
observations made in Preeti Gupta’s case (supra), the

Page 8 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see
whether such implication is over implication and/or
whether the allegations against such a person is an
exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the
fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7
there is no consideration at all of the contentions of
accused No.5 in the impugned order.

11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State

of U.P. and Anr.2 , this Court held that mere casual
reference of the names of the family members in a
matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of
over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the
household in the domestic quarrel resulting in
matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon
after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar
@ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors.3, this Court
quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the
husband on the ground that the allegations against them
are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the

2
(2012) 10 SCC 741
3
(2022) 6 SCC 599

Page 9 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
one at hand when relatives not residing in the same
house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall
not stop consideration by merely looking into the
question where the accused is a person falling within the
ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of
Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is
a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely
to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main
accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, wherein after
considering the statutory provisions and the earlier
decisions, this Court referred to various categories of
cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.
P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse
of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
One among such categories is where the allegations
made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused.
12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of
accused No.5 a little later and now, will consider the

4
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

Page 10 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
challenge of complainant against quashment of the
subject FIR and all consequential proceedings based
thereon, qua accused No.6 bearing in mind the above
conclusions and decisions. It is to be noted that the
impugned order itself would reveal that the learned
counsel who appeared for the complainant admitted
before the High Court regarding the absence of
allegations against accused No.6 as relates offences
under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. This is discernible
from paragraph 6 of the impugned order and it reads
thus: -
“6. Qua Petitioner No.1, Ld. Counsel admits that
so far as Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned,
there are no specific allegations. He asserts that
offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-
B of the IPC have been added later on and the
allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 shall
well fall within the ambit of Sections 420 IPC and
417 of the IPC.”

13. Thus, it can be seen that what was left to be

considered by the High Court in C.R.M.-M No.42226 of
2021, as relates accused No.6 was whether the

Page 11 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
allegations satisfied the ingredients to attract Sections
420 and 417, IPC.
14. Cheating simpliciter is punishable under Section
417, IPC. To bring home an offence under Section 415
punishable under Section 417, IPC, there must be (1)
deception of any person; (2) that person must have been
fraudulently or dishonestly induced – (i) to deliver any
property to any person, or (ii) to consent with any person
relating to any property; or (2)(a) that person must have
been induced intentionally to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit, if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.
15. The difference between Section 417 and Section
420, IPC, is that where in pursuance of the deception, no
property passes, the offence is one of cheating
punishable under Section 417, IPC, but where, in
pursuance of the deception, property is delivered, the
offence is punishable under Section 420, IPC. It is to be
noted that the High Court in respect of accused No.6 held
that the allegations in the FIR would not satisfy the
ingredients to attract the offence punishable under
Section 417, IPC. There cannot be any doubt with

Page 12 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
respect to the position that when the ingredients to
attract the offence punishable under Section 417, IPC are
not satisfied there cannot be any question of such
allegations/accusations attracting Section 420, IPC, for
the simple reason that to bring a case within the ambit of
Section 420, IPC, not only cheating is simpliciter but also
by dishonest inducement of that person sought to be
deceived to deliver any property must have delivered
that property or made alteration or destruction of any
valuable security. In view of the aforesaid position
obtained with respect to applicability Sections 417 and
420, IPC, and in view of the lack of allegations/
accusations to satisfy the ingredients to constitute such
offences in the subject FIR and also in the subsequently
filed final report the question is whether the contention
that the High Court had done an error or illegality in
quashing the FIR and also all further proceedings in
pursuance thereof, can be sustained. The said question
can be answered only in the negative. We will dilate on
the same along with consideration of the case of accused
No.5. A scanning of the impugned order would also
reveal the factum of subsequent filing of final report was
also within the knowledge of the trial Court.

Page 13 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
16. In view of the relationship between accused No.5
and the complainant and also the fact that accused No.5
got related to the husband of complainant’s daughter
only through her marriage with accused No.6, we are at
a loss to understand as to how the offences under
Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, could be raised against
accused No.5 in the light of the allegations in the subject
FIR especially when the complainant himself admitted
lack of specific allegations to connect accused No.6 with
the said offences and if similar are the allegations raised
against appellant Nos.5 and 6 qua the aforesaid offences.
17. A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that such
allegations against the accused No.5 and 6 are general
and omnibus in nature and that apart they are nothing but
exaggerated versions invariably suggesting over
implication of accused No.5 and 6.
18. It is true that the contention of the complainant is
that even before the High Court took up the matter for
consideration the challan was filed and the said fact
skipped the attention of the High Court and, in fact, in
such circumstances, the High Court ought not have
quashed the FIR and all further proceedings qua
respondent No.6. A mere glance of the impugned order
would reveal that the High Court had actually taken note

Page 14 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
of the fact of filing of challan before the trial Court. In this
context, it is relevant to note the decision in Umesh
Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.5, this Court
held that a petition could be filed under Section 482,
Cr.P.C., for quashing the chargesheet even before
framing of the charges and that it would not be in the
interest of justice to reject the application merely on the
ground that the accused concerned could argue legal
and factual issues at the time of framing of charges. We
have no doubt with respect to the scope and amplitude
of the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., which
virtually saves inherent powers of the High Court that the
said power could be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. In such circumstances if the High Court feels that
ends of justice requires that an order should be made in
the application, technicality shall not deter the court from
passing necessary orders to secure ends of justice.
19. In the said circumstances, the question is whether
the factum of filing of final report prior to filing of the
petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., should be a ground
for interfering with the impugned judgment whereunder

5
(2013) 10 SCC 591

Page 15 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
the subject FIR and all further proceedings therefore,
were quashed qua accused No.6 and declined to do so in
the case of accused No.5. The fact that the High Court
was appraised of the factum of filing of final report is
evident from the fact that the said position was
specifically mentioned in the impugned order itself. In
the contextual situation, while considering the aforesaid
question it is relevant to refer to the so-called specific
allegations made against the accused Nos.5 and 6 in the
FIR. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 who are
respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the
complainant’s daughter demanded Rs.15 lakhs from her
daughter for the purpose of enabling to obtain visa and
ticket for her travel to join her husband in Canada and
told her to hand over the same to accused Nos.5 and 6
who had been consulting the travel agent for that
purpose. Furthermore, it was alleged therein that in
pursuance the same amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given to
accused Nos.2 and 3. In the final report also the same
accusation has been made. In this context, it is relevant
to note that both the FIR and the final report would reveal
that the husband of the complainant’s daughter
subsequently left for Canada on 02.10.2020. Now it is to
be noted that the very contention of accused Nos.5 and 6

Page 16 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
is that they were residing in a different city viz., at Mohali
in Punjab and that the complainant’s daughter was
residing in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar in Punjab.
The said fact is indisputable as it is evident from the
materials on record. Taking note of the nature of their
relation with husband of the complainant’s daughter and
the fact that both the families were residing in different
cities and in the conspicuous absence of allegation/
accusation that they came to the place where
complainant’s daughter was residing and committed
cognizable offence as alleged on any particular date or
dates, we are at a loss to understand how the
complainant could contend that the quashment of the
proceedings based on subject FIR against the accused
No.6 warrants appellate interference and how they could
justify the disinclination to interfere with and qua the FIR
and all subsequent proceedings qua accused No.5.
Another allegation/ accusation against the accused
Nos.5 and 6 is that he along with other accused made
complainant’s daughter to believe that house at 6,
Gurunagar, near Goal Market, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar
belongs to the husband of the complainant’s daughter
viz., the first accused which later came to the knowledge
of the complainant and her daughter to be incorrect. In

Page 17 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
short, a careful scanning of the FIR and the subsequently
filed final report would show that the latter contains only
reiteration of the allegations in the FIR qua accused Nos.5
and 6. Evidently in the final report based on such bald
assertions different sections were put against them.
20. The decisions referred above on the subject of
exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would
undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the
contentions that there is lack of specific allegations
against the accused concerned to constitute the
offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the
implication was nothing but an over implication to
pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the
demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging
the obligation to consider such contentions. It appears
that in the case on hand despite raising of specific
contentions which require deeper consideration, may be
taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the
complainant that the challan was presented and the
matter stood listed for framing charges and hence, it
would be open to accused No.5 to raise all plea at the
time of framing of the charges, the Court refrained itself
from considering the contentions raised against accused
No.5.

Page 18 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
21. As noticed hereinbefore except what was
observed in paragraph 7, as extracted above, there is
total non-consideration of the serious contentions of
accused No.5. In the context of the case, it is worthwhile
to note that such accusations have actually come not from
the horse’s mouth and only from the father of the wife of
the first accused. That apart, except making vague
allegations against accused Nos.5 and 6, the complainant
did not make specific allegation with details against
them with details. A scanning of the materials on record
would reveal that the complainant was fully aware of the
fact that accused Nos.5 and 6 were living in Mohali in
Punjab whereas his daughter was living in Jalandhar.
Even then he did not state when the appellant visited the
place where his daughter was living. As noted above,
the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with the
first accused-Amit Sharma was solemnised on 23.02.2019
and Amit Sharma left for Canada on 07.03.2019. The
daughter of the second respondent–claimant stayed
back in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar and later on
02.12.2019 she also left for Canada.
22. The fact that the present complaint which
ultimately culminated in the impugned order was filed
by the complainant subsequent to the grant of divorce

Page 19 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
between the first accused and the complainant’s
daughter, is a fact discernible and indisputable. This had
occurred in Canada. A perusal of the final report would
reveal that even after the investigation no material
whatsoever worthy to connect the appellant with the
offences was seen collected. Therefore, the question is
whether the vague, and at the same time, highly
exaggerated versions of FIR and the proceedings
subsequent thereto can be permitted to be proceeded
against accused Nos.5 and 6. In short, on a careful
consideration of FIR and the final report and materials we
have no hesitation to hold that there is nothing on record
to suggest, even prima facie that they would constitute
the alleged offences against the accused No.6. In the
aforesaid circumstances and based on the decisions of
this Court as referred supra viz., Preeti Gupta’s case,
Geeta Mehrotra’s case and Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam’s case, the subject FIR and all further
proceedings therefrom against accused No.5 are liable
to be quashed and rightly they were quashed by the
High Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned order to that effect qua accused No.6. In
other words, Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Crl.)
No.13579 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed.

Page 20 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
23. A scanning of the FIR and the subsequently filed
final report would reveal that the allegation against
accused No.5, who is the wife of accused No.6, are also
of the same nature. It is relevant to note that she is
related to the husband of complainant’s daughter only
through her marriage with cousin brother of the first
accused viz., accused No.6. When the subject FIR and all
further proceedings pursuant therefrom were quashed
against the said cousin brother viz., accused No.6, the
same reasons must apply to the case of accused No.5 as
well. We are of the considered view that the High Court
ought to have interfered and quashed the subject FIR and
all other proceedings therefrom in relation to accused
No.5 viz., the wife of accused No.6 as well. To secure
interest of justice in the circumstances obtained, we are
of the considered view that filing of the chargesheet
cannot be a reason for interfering with impugned order
in respect of accused No.6 or rejecting the prayer of
accused No.5 to quash the proceedings and to make
them to argue or to raise the legal and factual issues at
the stage of framing of the charges. It is evident that
making them to face the trial based on the allegations or
accusation as referred above would be nothing but an
abuse of process of court.

Page 21 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022
24. For all the reasons given as above, Criminal
Appeal arising out from SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 is
allowed and the impugned order qua the accused No.5
is liable to be set aside. As a necessary sequel, the
subject FIR and all further proceedings therefrom
including the chargesheet qua accused No.5 are
quashed and set aside. Criminal Appeal arising out from
SLP (Crl.) No.13579 of 2023 filed by the complainant is
dismissed confirming the impugned order qua accused
No.6.
25. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
November 26, 2024

Page 22 of 22
SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022