9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (8) TMI 1149 - SC - Indian LawsDowry demand for luxury car - matrimonial litigation - Offence punishable u/s 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of this case? - HELD THAT -The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants. Admittedly, appellant No. 1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, appellant No. 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with respondent No. 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. When the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in the background of legal principles, then it would be unfair to compel the appellants to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to quash the complaint against the appellants. As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the summoning order against the appellants. 2. Applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. 3. Examination of allegations under Section 498A IPC. 4. The role of the judiciary and Bar in matrimonial disputes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Summoning Order Against the Appellants: The appellants, Preeti Gupta and Gaurav Poddar, challenged the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, based on a complaint filed under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323, and 120B of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint alleged that the appellants demanded a luxury car and physically assaulted the complainant. However, the appellants contended that there were no specific allegations against them and that they had been residing in different cities for years, never visiting Ranchi or Mumbai during the relevant period. The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations against the appellants, and none of the witnesses mentioned any role of the appellants in the alleged offenses. The court concluded that the implication of the appellants seemed to be intended to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. 2. Applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Quashing the Complaint: The main question was whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. The court referred to several precedents, including *R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab* and *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, which outlined scenarios where inherent power should be exercised to quash proceedings. The court emphasized that the power should be used sparingly and with caution, particularly when the allegations do not constitute an offense or are manifestly attended with mala fide intentions. 3. Examination of Allegations Under Section 498A IPC: The court noted that Section 498A IPC deals with the cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a woman. It observed that many complaints under this section are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations, often resulting in harassment and suffering for all parties involved. The court stressed the need for careful scrutiny of allegations in matrimonial disputes, especially when the accused relatives live in different cities and have minimal interaction with the complainant. The court found that the allegations against the appellants were exaggerated and lacked a solid foundation, making it unjust to subject them to a criminal trial. 4. The Role of the Judiciary and Bar in Matrimonial Disputes: The court highlighted the increasing number of matrimonial disputes and the resultant social unrest. It called upon the members of the Bar to exercise their social responsibility by ensuring that complaints under Section 498A IPC are not exaggerated and are handled with a view to resolving the underlying human problems. The court also urged the legislature to reconsider the provisions of Section 498A IPC to address the pragmatic realities and prevent misuse of the law. The court directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Law Commission and the Union Law Secretary for appropriate legislative action. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the complaint against the appellants, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. The court emphasized the need for judicial caution in handling matrimonial disputes and called for legislative review to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC. The appeal was allowed in the interest of justice.
|
