9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Validity of order passed by High Court u/s 492 of CrPC quashing criminal proceeding, application of Section 468 of the Code, interpretation of Section 473 of the Code.
Summary: 1. The appellant filed a complaint against her husband and others, alleging cruelty and abuse. The High Court quashed the criminal proceeding citing Section 468 of the Code, stating that the offence under Section 498A was time-barred as the complaint was filed after three years. However, no mention was made regarding the offence under Section 494, punishable by up to seven years' imprisonment. 2. Section 468 of the Code introduced limitations for taking cognizance of certain offences, considering the lapse of time weakens witness testimony. Section 473 allows the Court to take cognizance after the expiry of the limitation period if necessary in the interest of justice, overriding Section 468. The Court must assess the nature of the offence and the victim's background before deciding on condoning the delay. 3. Courts should not apply the rule of limitation strictly in cases of cruelty against women, as the victim often faces continuous abuse and may delay seeking legal recourse due to various reasons. The interest of justice should prevail over the limitation period, especially in cases of matrimonial offences involving cruelty and assault. 4. Referring to a previous case, the Court emphasized the importance of Section 473 in ensuring justice is served even after the limitation period has expired. In the present case, the High Court failed to consider Section 473 while quashing the complaint under Section 498A, despite the seriousness of the allegations. 5. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the case promptly, emphasizing the need to consider the interest of justice over strict adherence to limitation periods in cases involving cruelty and abuse.
|
