NON­REPORTABLE

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 200 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).8283 OF 2021)

SHAFIYA KHAN @ SHAKUNTALA 
PRAJAPATI   ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ANR.  ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.  This appeal is directed against the order dated 8 th September,

2021   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad

declining to interfere in the criminal proceedings initiated against
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2022.02.10
17:54:04 IST
Reason:
the   appellant   at   the   instance   of   respondent   no.2/complainant

(bother­in­law of the appellant).   

1
3.   The   case   of   the   appellant   is   that   she   was   born   in   a   Hindu

family and was married in May 2009 when she was a minor (17

years) to one Shiv Gobind Prajapati with whom she never stayed

and the marriage was never consummated. In the divorce petition

which was filed by Shiv Gobind Prajapati, it was admitted that the

marriage   was   never   consummated   and   this   marriage   was

dissolved through Village Panchayat in 2014 between the families

of   the   appellant   and   Shiv   Gobind   Prajapati,   who   thereafter

married   another   woman,   Suman   Prajapati   and   this   marriage

being voidable under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

and   Section   3   of   Prohibition   of   Child   Marriage   Act,   2006   was

dissolved and annulled by the families of the appellant and Shiv

Gobind Prajapati.  

4.     The   appellant   treating   her   marriage   to   be   annulled   for   all

practical   purposes,   while   doing   her   studies   in   Lucknow,   met

Mohd. Shameem Khan and they got married on 11 th  December,

2016   under   Sharia   law   in   presence   of   entire   family   of   her   late

husband,   including   respondent   no.2/complainant,   against   the

wishes of her family. A certificate of marriage was issued by the

2
competent   authority   and   a   translated   copy   of   “Nikah   Nama”

(Marriage Certificate) was issued by the Languages Department,

Darul   Uloom   Nadwatul   Ulama,   Lucknow   dated   11 th  December,

2016.   

5.   From this marriage, the appellant gave birth to a male child

on   23rd  September,   2017   and   was   living   happily   with   her   late

husband.     Unfortunately,   her   husband   passed   away   on   8 th

December,   2017.   After   the   appellant   obtained   succession

certificate in her name and no objection was given by her mother­

in­law   to   the   employer   of   Mohd.   Shameem   Khan,   she   got

employment   in   King   George   Medical   University,   Lucknow,   as

Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) on compassionate grounds by an

order dated 19th  May, 2018 w.e.f. 28th  April, 2018 and being the

legally wedded wife of the deceased (late Mohd. Shameed Khan),

his terminal dues were paid to her.   The fact is that the entire

gratuity   amount   of   Rs.4,60,000/­   of   her   late   husband   was

transferred   by   her   to   the   bank   account   of   her   mother   in­law.

However, the destiny was not humble to her and she was thrown

out of her matrimonial home by respondent no.2 with an eleven

3
months old child on 19th August, 2018 and thereafter respondent

no.2   made   all   kinds   of   malafide,   false   and   frivolous   allegations

against the appellant, including to the employer of the appellant

to remove her from employment.   

6.  After more than a year, at the instance of respondent no.2, a

written complaint/FIR came to be registered against the appellant

for offences under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 IPC at

PS   Bazar   Khala,   District   Lucknow,   U.P.   on   9th  July,   2019.

Anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant and after charge­

sheet came to be filed on 23 rd  March, 2021 under Sections 494,

420, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the learned trial Judge took

cognizance of the same and summoned the appellant.  

7.   At   this   stage,   the   appellant   approached   the   High   Court   of

Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

of   the   proceedings,   but that came to be dismissed by the High

Court under impugned order dated 8th September, 2021, which

is the subject matter of challenge in the appeal before us.

8.           Counsel   for   the   appellant   submits   that   everything   was

running   smoothly   in   her   life,   but   because   of   the   untimely   sad

4
demise of her husband late Mohd. Shameem Khan, her brother­

in­law left no stone unturned to pressurize her for handing over

all the terminal benefits which she received on account of death of

her   late   husband   and   was   interested   to   seek   compassionate

appointment in her place.  This was the primary reason for which

all uncalled for allegations were levelled against her, including the

forgery committed in preparing Nikah Nama.

9.  It was alleged in the complaint that before annulment of first

marriage, the appellant had entered into marriage with late Mohd.

Shameem   Khan   on   11th  December,   2016,   and   thereafter   she

started   to   harass   his   late   brother   mentally   and   physically   and

that was the reason for which his brother suddenly died during

his   service   on   8th  December,  2017.   It  was further  alleged  that

immediately after his  death, there was a sudden change in the

behaviour of the appellant and she tried to oust her mother­in­

law,   sister­in­law   and   respondent   no.2/complainant   from   the

house.     Every   day,   she   used   to   threaten   and   abuse   the   family

members and by committing a forgery, she obtained the job on

compassionate grounds and took all the terminal benefits and the

5
genuine dependents of late Mohd. Shameem Khan (brother of the

complainant)   were   deprived   of   his   terminal   benefits   and   this

Nikah (marriage) was solemnized by her without any divorce from

her   previous   husband,   on   the   basis   of   which   the   FIR   was

registered and charges were framed against her.

10.   Counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is not a

case   of   the   complainant   that   his   brother   (deceased)   had   ever

made any complaint of any nature during his lifetime against the

appellant in reference to the matrimonial relationship between the

appellant and her late husband (Mohd. Shameem Khan) and after

his  untimely demise, all sort of allegations were levelled by her

brother­in­law on the basis of which the FIR was registered.  

11.   Counsel further submits that there is no iota of evidence to

support what is alleged in the complaint by respondent no.2 on

the basis of which FIR has been registered and even if what is

being   stated   in  the   FIR  is  taken on  its face value, prima  facie,

none   of   the   offences   which   have   been   levelled   against   the

appellant   in   the   charge­sheet   are   made   out.     In   the   given

circumstances,   if   the   criminal   proceedings   at   this   stage   are

6
allowed   to   continue   against   her,   it   will   be   nothing   but   a   clear

abuse   of   the   process   of   law   and   a   mental   harassment   to   the

appellant,   more   so,   when   she   has   not   only   to     sustain   her

employment, but being the only bread winner of her family, she

has to take care of her minor son also and further submits that

the   High   Court   has   not   even   looked   into   the   prima   facie

allegations levelled in the FIR on the basis of which charge­sheet

came to be filed and just after quoting certain passages from the

judgments of this Court, dismissed the petition preferred at her

instance under Section 482 Cr.PC. 

12.       Counsel   submits   that   the   principles   have   been   well   laid

down by this Court in  State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan

Lal and Others1, and  which have been consistently followed in

the  later years and taking the test as laid down by this Court,

what being alleged in the complaint on the basis of which FIR has

been registered, even if prima facie taken into consideration, no

offence is made out of the kind levelled against her.  In the given

circumstances,   the   present   proceedings   initiated   against   the

1 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
7
appellant deserve to be quashed and set aside being an abuse of

the process of law.   

13.     Counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant

jointly submit that after the FIR was registered, investigation was

made and  only  thereafter the charge­sheet was filed.   It can at

least be  presumed  that a prima facie case against her is made

out.   The High Court has appreciated the material available on

record and found no reason to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.PC and the impugned judgment needs no

further interference of this Court.

14.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

15.    The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise

of the extra­ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution

or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled

and   to   the   possible   extent,   this   Court   has   defined   sufficiently

channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds

of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has

8
held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal

and Others (supra) as under :

“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.

9
 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of   which   no   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   concerned   Act
(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 concerned Act, 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.”

16.       The   principles   laid   down   by   this   Court   have   consistently

been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge

judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.

State of Maharashtra and Others2.

17.     It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal

proceedings   should   be   exercised   very   sparingly   and   with

circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was

not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in

2 AIR 2021 SC 1918
10
the   FIR   or   the   complaint   and   that   the   inherent   powers   do   not

confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to

its whims and fancies.   

18.       Adverting   to   the   facts   of   the   instant   case,   there   was   no

material placed on record by the complainant to justify the bald

allegations   which   were   made   in   the   complaint   on   the   basis   of

which FIR was registered.   There are undisputed facts on record

that   the   appellant’s   marriage   was   solemnized   with   late   Mohd.

Shameem Khan on 11th December, 2016 and from this wed­lock,

a male child was born on 23 rd September, 2017 and her husband

untimely   passed   away   on   8th  December,   2017   and   until   their

period of matrimonial relationship, no complaint of any kind was

ever made by her late husband (Mohd. Shameem Khan) and after

she   was   paid   his   terminal   benefits   and   got   a   compassionate

appointment   in   his   place   as   an   A.N.M.   by   an   order   dated   19 th

May, 2018 w.e.f. 28th April, 2018, all sort of issues were raised by

the   complainant   (brother   of   her   deceased   husband)   of   making

such false allegations with reference to her marriage and also for

the terminal benefits which she received and there was not even

11
prima facie foundation to support the nature of allegations which

were made.  

19.      Although it  is  true that it was not open for  the Court to

embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of

the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some

factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR

which is completely missing in the present case and documentary

evidence   on   record   clearly   supports   that   her   Nikah   Nama   was

duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the

charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how

the marriage certificate was forged. 

20.   In the given circumstances and going through the complaint

on   the   basis   of   which   FIR   was   registered   and   other   material

placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of

any   kind   as   has   been   alleged   in   the   FIR,   has   been   made   out

against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to

continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law

and   will   be   a   mental   trauma   to   the   appellant   which   has   been

12
 completely   overlooked   by   the   High   Court   while   dismissing   the

petition filed at her instance under Section 482 Cr.PC.  

21.       Consequently,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The   criminal

proceedings   initiated   against   the   appellant   in   reference   to   FIR

No.0227 of 2019 dated 9 th  July, 2019 under Sections 494, 495,

416,   420,   504   &   506   IPC   lodged   at   PS   Bazar   Khala,   District

Lucknow, U.P. are hereby quashed and set aside.

22.   Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.  

……………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)

…………………………..J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 10, 2022.

13