9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment and decree of a competent Civil Court can be declared null and void in collateral proceedings, specifically criminal proceedings. 2. Whether the criminal complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable. 3. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the application of the Appellant u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint. Summary: Issue 1: Nullity of Civil Court Judgment in Collateral Proceedings The Supreme Court emphasized that even if a decree is void ab initio, the declaration to that effect must be obtained from the competent court and cannot be declared void in collateral proceedings. The court cited precedents such as *State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead)* and *Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd.*, affirming that a void order requires setting aside by a competent court. The court held that Respondent No. 2, having been a party to the alleged fraud, cannot seek equitable relief due to the legal maxim "allegans suam turpetudinem non est audients." Issue 2: Maintainability of Criminal Complaint The court noted that the reliefs sought in the complaint, such as custody of the minor child, right of residence, and restoration of dowry articles, cannot be granted by the criminal court while the judgment and decree of the Civil Court subsist. The court referred to the legal principle that fraud unravels everything but reiterated that the appropriate forum must set aside such orders. The court also highlighted that Respondent No. 2's complaint involved her own admission of being an accomplice to the alleged fraud, making her disentitled to any equitable relief. Issue 3: High Court's Rejection of Application u/s 482 CrPC The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in rejecting the application of the Appellant u/s 482 CrPC. The court held that permitting the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint under the Act 2005 would be incompatible with the subsisting decree of divorce and amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The court emphasized that the complaint's contents must be taken at face value, but in this case, allowing the proceedings would be a travesty of justice. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2010 were set aside. The petition filed by the Appellant u/s 482 CrPC was allowed, and Complaint No. 87/02/09 pending before the Magistrate, Jalandhar, along with all orders passed therein, were quashed. The court clarified that Respondent No. 2 could continue with her other cases, and the concerned court may proceed in accordance with the law without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment.
|
