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
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   23 rd
  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   19 th
  May,   2018   w.e.f.   28 th
  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 19 th
  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   9 th
  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   11 th
  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   8 th
  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   Others 1
,   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 Others 2
.
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 11 th
  December, 2016 and from this wed­lock,
a male child was born on 23 rd
 September, 2017 and her husband
untimely   passed   away   on   8 th
  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. 28 th
 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