9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 497 - SC - Indian LawsDemand of Dowry - Incidents of cruelty and harassment - Application for quashing the proceedings of CC u/s 482 CrPC - Cognizance of Offence u/s 498 A and 406 IPC r/w Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act after expiry of three years - marriage dissolved by the Superior Court at New Jersey - HELD THAT - The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition whereby the proceedings of CC were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC. We are further of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, continuation of proceedings of CC will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is not in dispute that after marriage, Shireesha Bhavani lived with appellant No.1 for less than one and a half months (eight days at Hyderabad and about thirty days at New Jersey). It is also not in dispute that their marriage was dissolved by the Superior Court at New Jersey vide decree dated 15.12.1999. Shireesha Bhavani is not shown to have challenged the decree of divorce. As a mater of fact, she married Sri Venkat Puskar in 2000 and has two children from the second marriage. She also received all the articles of dowry (including jewellery) by filing affidavit dated 28.12.1999 in the Superior Court at New Jersey. As on today a period of almost nine years has elapsed of the marriage of appellant No.1 and Shireesha Bhavani and seven years from her second marriage. Therefore, at this belated stage, there does not appear to be any justification for continuation of the proceedings in CC. Rather, it would amount to sheer harassment to the appellant and Shireesha Bhavani who are settled in USA, if they are required to come to India for giving evidence in relation to an offence allegedly committed in 1998-99. It is also extremely doubtful whether the Government of India will, after lapse of such a long time, give sanction in terms of Section 188 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings of CC, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, are quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Jurisdiction and limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 3. Continuing offences and applicability of Section 472 Cr.P.C. 4. Sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. 5. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC Read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act: The appellants sought to quash the proceedings of CC No. 240/2002, arguing that the learned magistrate took cognizance after almost four years of the last alleged act of cruelty. The High Court initially refused to quash the proceedings, noting that the learned magistrate had taken cognizance within three years. However, the Supreme Court noted that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court, especially considering the elapsed time and the subsequent life events of the parties involved. 2. Jurisdiction and Limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.: Section 468 Cr.P.C. creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence after the lapse of the period of limitation. The appellants argued that the learned magistrate did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act after the expiry of three years. The Supreme Court noted that the learned magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., which would have been necessary to proceed with the case. 3. Continuing Offences and Applicability of Section 472 Cr.P.C.: The High Court had observed that each act of cruelty could be a new starting point of limitation, thereby treating the offences as continuing in nature. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that in cases involving matrimonial offences, the court should adopt a liberal approach under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to extend the period of limitation, considering the nature of the allegations, the time taken by the police in investigation, and the societal impact of such offences. 4. Sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C.: The appellants contended that the offences allegedly committed outside India could not be enquired into or tried without obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government as per Section 188 Cr.P.C. The High Court had rejected this plea, stating that such sanction could be obtained even during the trial. The Supreme Court, however, found it extremely doubtful whether the Government of India would give sanction after such a long time, further supporting the decision to quash the proceedings. 5. Exercise of Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court emphasized the cautious and slow approach the High Court should adopt in interfering with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases. The High Court should only quash proceedings when convinced beyond doubt that the FIR does not disclose any offence or that the prosecution is barred by law. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the continuation of the proceedings would result in sheer harassment to the appellant and Shireesha Bhavani, who are settled in the USA, and thus, quashed the proceedings in CC No. 240/2002. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quashed the proceedings of CC No. 240/2002, pending in the Court of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on the grounds of abuse of process, elapsed time, and lack of justification for continuation of the proceedings.
|
