Disha Kapoor vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 649 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024

DISHA KAPOOR PETITIONER VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. A disgruntled wife, is the petitioner in this Special

Leave Petition, aggrieved with the invocation of Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 by the High Court

of Allahabad to quash a proceeding initiated by the

petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. The second

respondent herein who is the husband of the petitioner

along with the third and fourth respondents who are his

parents, approached the High Court under Section 482,

Cr.PC against the summons issued by the Court of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.05.08 1 16:11:29 IST Reason:

the Cr. PC

Page 1 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint

Case No.9780 of 2022. The allegations levelled by the

petitioner in the complaint case were of offences under

Section 498A, 325 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In fact, the

petitioner had arrayed ten persons in the complaint; her

husband, his parents, two brothers of his father, their wives

and three children of three brothers, totalling ten. The

Magistrate after perusing the complaint, by the impugned

order dated 08.11.2023, noticed many contradictions in the

stand of the complainant as coming forth from the complaint

and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202,

Cr.PC. It was found that there was no case to summon any of

the persons arrayed in the complaint, except, the husband,

father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant,

specifically relying on the judgment in Geeta Mehrotra and

Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.2

2. The learned Single Judge, before whom the petitioner

appeared in person, quashed the proceedings initiated 2 (2012) 10 SCC 741

Page 2 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 relying on Preeti Gupta and Anr. V. State of Jharkhand and

Anr.3 which noted with anguish the rapidly increasing

matrimonial litigations in the country roping in the close

relatives of the husband and even members of the extended

family, as in this case, on allegations of harassment. This

requires the Courts to be doubly cautious and extremely

careful in dealing with such complaints, especially since the

ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and not only

to punish the guilty but also to protect the innocent. It was

also emphasised that in the event of the proceedings being

found to be an abuse of process of Court, then necessarily

the power under Section 482, Cr. PC should be invoked to

secure the ends of justice.

3. We heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/complainant, Mr.Dinesh

Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Shaurya Sahay,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The marriage on 11.12.2019 is admitted by the parties,

which according to the petitioner, was initiated and carried 3 (2010) 7 SCC 667

Page 3 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 out with much pomp and ceremony by the grandfather of

the groom, a very respected person who had also been the

Governor of a State. The petitioner alleged that while the

grandfather of her husband was alive, she was treated with

dignity. As soon as he died, mental and physical harassment

commenced, not only from her husband and his parents but

also from the larger family, comprising of two brothers of

the father-in-law who are also very influential and one of

them holding a Minister’s post in the Government. The

complainant accuses her in-laws of having thrown her out of

the matrimonial home on 28.09.2020 before which she was

beaten up, resulting in a fracture on her hand. Despite

being thrown out, the complainant in an attempt at

rapprochement, went back to her matrimonial home on

08.10.2020 at which point also she was treated badly and

again turned out from the house. An uncle, who was arrayed

as an opposite party, the Minister, is alleged to have

threatened her with death. The specific threat levelled was

that one another uncle would shoot her to death, which

Page 4 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 uncle was, in any case, not arrayed as an accused in the

complaint.

5. A further effort was made by the petitioner and she

along with her mother went to her matrimonial home on

16.12.2021. The accused persons allegedly abused them

from the balcony, threatened them and demanded Rs.50

lakhs and a Fortuner car as dowry to allow her to resume

cohabitation with her husband. A complaint given to the

police on 02.01.2022 was withdrawn, allegedly on pressure.

A further complaint was made which again did not evoke

any response which led to the filing of the application under

Section 156(3) of the Cr. PC. Admitted is also the fact that the

husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 19554 before the Family Court in which the

petitioner had appeared and filed a written statement and

also initiated a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the HMA. The petition filed for annulment

of marriage by the first respondent was allowed and that

filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a common 4 the HMA

Page 5 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 judgment. An appeal is said to have been filed from the said

judgment of the Family Court which is still pending.

6. We even made an attempt to settle the disputes to give

a quietus to the dispute, but we could not succeed in our

efforts hence we propose to decide the case on the merits.

7. An attempt was also made to take us to the facts as to

what transpired before the Family Court under Section 12 of

the HMA, which we refused to get into, since the matter is

still pending in appeal. We are not making any observation

on that count, lest it, in any manner affect the just

adjudication of the appeal. We are only concerned with the

specific allegation of harassment based on demand of

dowry.

8. As noticed by the High Court and also by the learned

Magistrate who issued the summons, there are many

inconsistencies in the versions of the complainant. The

petitioner is said to have returned to her matrimonial home

on 08.10.2020 and 16.12.2020, having been thrown out of the

house initially on 28.09.2020. At the first instance, according

Page 6 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 to her, all the persons in the matrimonial home illtreated her

and she was thrown out of the house. The petitioner also

speaks of information given to the Deputy Chairman of the

Women Commission who has not taken any action on the

information supplied. However, there is no record to show a

proper complaint having been made in writing to the

Women Commission. Again on 16.12.2021, according to the

application under Section 156(3), when she went to her

matrimonial home along with her mother, the named

persons of the family abused her, whereas in the statement

under Section 200, Cr. PC, she only speaks of one Subodh

Tandon, a cousin of the husband, having demanded a

Fortuner car and Rs.50 lakhs. The statement under Section

200, Cr.PC also does not contain any allegation of the

petitioner having been thrown out of the matrimonial house

on 28.09.2020.

9. We cannot but also observe that there is no specific

allegation of any physical violence except for vague

statements made about the petitioner having been beaten

Page 7 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 up, in which she sustained a fracture and having been

subjected to physical and mental torture. There is no

evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the

allegation; especially when the petitioner is said to have

suffered a fracture.

10. The petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the

written statement in case No.2790 of 2020 before the

Additional Family Court VII, Lucknow, produced along with

the records, indicates that the matrimonial life in the initial

stages was very cordial and even pleasurable as is stated in

paragraph 6. It is also admitted that the statements made by

the husband regarding visit to the clinic of one doctor was

intended for counselling and the medications prescribed by

the doctor was to treat the anxiety of the petitioner, not

amounting to mental illness, which indicates that the

relationship had deteriorated in a short span of time.

Despite the allegation of physical and mental torture as also

the demand of dowry, the petitioner has moved the Family

Court for restitution of conjugal rights, after the petition

Page 8 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 under Section 12 was filed by the husband. Strangely it has

also been stated in the affidavit referred to above that a

cheque of Rs.50,000/- was given by the husband to the wife

on 26.10.2020 for the purpose of purchasing gifts for ‘Karwa

Chauth’ and Diwali. It is also admitted that the petitioner had

purchased an expensive saree which was worn by her on

the day of ‘Karwa Chauth’. According to the petitioner the

relationship between them was cordial and smooth and

there was no tension between them. The statements made

on affidavit regarding the amounts given on 26.10.2020 by

the husband to the wife for purchase of an expensive saree

to celebrate ‘Karwa Chauth’ is after 28.09.2020, the date on

which the petitioner alleges she was thrown out of her

matrimonial home. It is also after 08.10.2020; the date on

which the petitioner alleges she returned to the matrimonial

home, when she was threatened and thrown out by the

entire family.

11. The petitioner had taken contrary stands and there are

inconsistencies in the complaint and statement which was

Page 9 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024 made before the Magistrate, which persuade us to find the

proceedings to be a clear abuse of process of the Court, as

has been held by the High Court. We find absolutely no

reason to interfere with the invocation of the extraordinary

power under Section 482, Cr. PC which, as rightly held by

the High Court, secures the ends of justice and puts to

naught a criminal proceeding which is a clear abuse of

process of law.

12. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

MAY 08, 2025.

Page 10 of 10 SLP (Crl.) No.4485 of 2024