Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2020
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.2908 OF 2019]
KAMLESH KALRA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHILPIKA KALRA & ORS. .….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 415 OF 2020
[ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO. 2371 OF 2020]
[DIARY NO. 9972 OF 2019]
SHILPIKA KALRA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANISH KALRA & ORS. .….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2020.04.24
16:59:05 IST
Reason:
Vineet Saran, J.
2
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Brief facts of this case, relevant for the purpose of the
present appeals, are that the complainant (Shilpika Kalra) and
her husband (Manish Kalra) got married on 28.07.2007. The
marriage took place in Delhi, but thereafter, they were living
together in Mumbai, where both were working. Admittedly, the
two of them started living separately since 10.06.2009.
Thereafter, on 24.07.2009, the husbandManish Kalra filed a
divorce petition before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The
said divorce petition is still pending.
4. Then, after a gap of nearly three and a half years, on
28.01.2013, the wifeShilpika Kalra filed a complaint in Delhi
seeking registration of First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’)
against Manish Kalra (husband), Kamlesh Kalra (motherinlaw),
Avnish Kalra (brotherinlaw) and Suman Kalra (sisterinlaw),
along with a list of stridhan articles, alleging that the said
articles were in possession of all the accused. Then, on
29.10.2014, the police registered an FIR under Sections 406 and
3
498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) against all
the accused as mentioned above. The said FIR reads as follows:
“I Shilpika Kalra, on my complaint
appeared in CAW Cell on 15.9.2014 at
11.30 a.m. My inlaws have not
appeared in spite of being informed. I
was married to Manish Kalra under
Hindu Rights was arranged & on
28.7.2007 in Delhi Cantt. On the
wedding my family & widow mother of
Late Brig S H Grover gave case & gifts
as per their standard & standard of
my inlaws. After marriage I resided
in J1902 CR Park where my mother
inlaw demanded my salary &
mentioned. She received all white
goods for her marriage from her
brother when she got married. My
mother should set up my house. They
also insulted me that their elder son
was married Taj Hotels & my mother
did not do the needful. All expensive
Omega Watches, designer gifts & cash
gifted were not appreciated. After the
marriage I took a transfer from DNA
Newspaper Delhi & relocated to
Mumbai to join my husband. He
deserted me on June 10, 2009 & filed
a frivolous petition for divorce. My
Stridhan is with my motherinlaw
Kamlesh Kalra, Avnish Kalra, Suman
Kalra. My motherinlaw resides & is
in the possession of my Stridhan. Mrs.
Kamlesh Kalra (all responsible to
influence my husband). Kindly also
ask Mrs. Kamlesh Kalra to return my
Stridhan. She is instrumental in
4
influencing my husband to file a
divorce petition. Next date 19.0.2014
at 11.00 A.M. Sd/ Shilpika Kalra, J
1902, C.R. Park, New Delhi.
9920389955.”
5. Then, on 16.06.2015, husbandManish Kalra deposited
the Stridhan articles, along with a Pay Order of Rs.5,98,000/,
with the Investigation Officer, because the complainant/wife
Shilpika Kalra refused to accept the same on the ground that the
list submitted was incomplete, and that all the Stridhan articles
were not deposited.
6. On 25.05.2016, a chargesheet was filed by the police
against the husbandManish Kalra, and motherinlaw Kamlesh
Kalra, and not against the brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw
(Avnish Kalra and Suman Kalra, respectively), who were
residents of Singapore from 20082014 and thereafter of Hong
Kong since 2014. In the said chargesheet, it was clearly
mentioned that “complainant has not provided the list of
remaining Stridhan till now.”
Then, on 09.01.2017, it was recorded by the police that
the complainant/wifeShilpika Kalra visited the police station on
24.08.2016 and submitted a letter, with the additional list of her
5
Stridhan articles which were not returned to her. The same list
of Stridhan articles was again filed with the police on
05.12.2016, with a request to recover the remaining articles.
This additional list was given after more than seven years of the
divorce petition having been filed, and more than a year after the
husbandManish Kalra had deposited the Stridhan articles,
along with a Pay Order of Rs.5,98,000/, with the Investigation
Officer.
7. Then, on 22.02.2018, the Court framed charges under
Section 406/34 IPC against the husbandManish Kalra and
motherinlaw Kamlesh Kalra. The husbandManish Kalra was
also charged under Section 498A IPC as well.
8. It may be noted that after the chargesheet was
submitted by the police on 25.05.2016, and even before the
charges were framed by the Court, Manish Kalra, Kamlesh Kalra,
Avnish Kalra and Suman Kalra filed Writ Petition (Crl.) no.431 of
2016, seeking quashing of the FIR no.390 of 2014 under
Sections 498A/406 IPC, filed by complainantShilpika Kalra.
9. The High Court, vide its judgment and order dated
12.10.2018, held that since no chargesheet was filed against the
6
brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw (Avnish Kalra and Suman Kalra,
respectively), the petition seeking quashing of FIR on their behalf
was rendered infructuous. Further, the High Court allowed the
said Writ Petition to the extent that the Writ Petitioners Manish
Kalra and Kamlesh Kalra were not liable to be proceeded under
Section 498A IPC, as the FIR was filed beyond the period of
limitation of three years. However, with regard to the offence
under Section 406 IPC, it was observed that the same was a
continuing offence and every day of nonreturn of Stridhan
articles would give fresh cause of action, and thus it was held
that the same would not be liable to be quashed on the ground of
limitation. However, since the entrustment of the Stridhan
articles was alleged only against motherinlaw Kamlesh Kalra
and not the husbandManish Kalra, the FIR under Section 406
IPC was quashed with regard to Manish Kalra alone, and not
against the motherinlaw Kamlesh Kalra.
10. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court,
Kamlesh Kalra filed this appeal by way of this Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) no. 2908 of 2019 against the complainant/wife
Shilpika Kalra (respondent no.1); State (NCT) Delhi (respondent
7
no.2); husbandManish Kalra (proforma respondent no.3);
brotherinlaw Avnish Kalra (proforma respondent no.4); and
sisterinlaw Suman Kalra (proforma respondent no.5).
The complainant Shilpika Kalra also filed Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) Diary No.9972 of 2019 against Manish Kalra,
Kamlesh Kalra, Avnish Kalra, Suman Kalra and State (NCT)
Delhi.
11. Both these Appeals (arising out of aforementioned Special
Leave Petitions) have been heard together. We have heard learned
Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material
on record.
12. After considering the decisions of this Court rendered in
Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3
and , and the
SCC 4 Arun Vyas vs Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690
decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Asha Ahuja vs Rajesh
Ahuja 2003 (68) DRJ 437 and S. K. Bhalla vs State of NCT of
2010 SCC OnLine Del 4384 , the High Court held as under:
Delhi
“………..
11. As noted above, the allegations of
the complainant are of harassment by
8
the petitioners No.1 and 2 i.e. the
husband and the motherinlaw.
Admittedly the respondent No.2 and
petitioner No.1 are living separately
since June 10, 2009 and there is no
material to show that due to
reconciliatory measures or for what
reason the respondent No.2 failed to
file the complaint on which the afore
th
noted FIR was registered till 28
January, 2013, i.e. beyond the period
of limitation of three years. Thus there
being no justification for the delay in
filing the complaint beyond the period
of limitation and there being no
allegation that the physical and mental
harassment continued against
respondent No.2 beyond June 10,
2009, petitioners No.1 and 2 are not
liable to be proceeded under Section
498A IPC. However, as noted above,
Section 406 IPC is a continuing offence
and every day of nonreturn of the
istridhan articles would give fresh
cause of action. Admittedly, after the
registration of the FIR petitioner No.1
sought to return certain istridhan
articles thereby fortifying the claim of
breach of trust. However, one of the
necessary ingredients for offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC is
entrustment and the complainant
alleges entrustment of istridhan
articles to petitioner No.2 and not
petitioner No.1.
12. Thus, this Court finds no ground
to quash the FIR in question against
petitioner No.2 for offence punishable
9
under Section 406 IPC or the
proceedings thereto.”
13. As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in
respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of
the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In
the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in
2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three
years after the separation of Manish Kalra (husband) and
Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the
husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons
given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under
section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by
this Court.
14. Admittedly, after the marriage on 28.07.2007, the wife
Shilpika Kalra and husbandManish Kalra were living separately
since 10.06.2009. On 24.07.2009, the husbandManish Kalra
had filed divorce petition in Mumbai. Even though, the divorce
petition has been pending for over a decade, no allegation in the
said proceedings, till date, has been made by wifeShilpika Kalra
claiming any Stridhan. It is also not disputed that all the
10
Stridhan articles, as per the list initially furnished by the wife
Shilpika Kalra on 28.01.2013, along with a Pay Order of
Rs.5,98,000/, was tendered to the wifeShilpika Kalra and when
she did not accept the same, the Stridhan articles, as well as the
Pay Order, were deposited with the Investigation Officer on
16.06.2015, and the same are still with the police. In the FIR, it
is not even alleged that the complainant/wifeShilpika Kalra ever
demanded the Stridhan articles from her motherinlaw Kamlesh
Kalra or her husbandManish Kalra; or that there was refusal by
the said parties to return the Stridhan.
Keeping in view that the husbandManish Kalra has already
deposited the Stridhan articles, as given in the list by wife
Shilpika Kalra on 28.01.2013, it cannot be said that the mother
inlaw Kamlesh Kalra or the husbandManish Kalra ever wanted
to keep the Stridhan articles, as well as the money, with them.
The subsequent list submitted by the complainant in 2016, of
which reference has been made in the police report dated
09.01.2017, clearly appears to be an afterthought, as the same
was filed after more than seven years of the filing of the divorce
11
petition, and more than three years after the initial list was filed
along with the complaint on 28.01.2013.
15. The submission of the learned Counsel of the
complainant, in this regard, is that the additional list furnished
later was of the items gifted by the family and friends of the
appellant, and some household items. In the facts of this case, in
our view, the same is not worthy of acceptance.
16. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that
the allegations of the complainant Shilpika Kalra with regard to
nonreturn of the Stridhan articles and the charges under
Section 406 against the Kamlesh Kalra (or even against Manish
Kalra, Avnish Kalra and Suman Kalra) are not sustainable in
law. It clearly appears that the filing of the criminal complaint is
a pressure tactic, having been employed by the complainant
Shilpika Kalra against her husband, motherinlaw, brotherin
law and sisterinlaw, which is clearly an abuse of the process of
Court, and is liable to be quashed in toto.
17. As such, we allow the Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No.2908 of 2019 filed by Kamlesh Kalra and quash
the FIR no. 390 of 2014 under Sections 498A/406 IPC; and
12
dismiss the Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)…..
(Diary No.9972 of 2019) filed by Shilpika Kalra.
………………………………..J
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
...…………………………….J
(VINEET SARAN)
New Delhi;
April 24, 2020.