A. E. RANI versus V.S.R. SARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 14-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A.E. RANI 
v. 
V.S.R. SARMA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 1994 
[S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482. High Court-Power 
to quash criminal proceedings-Private complaint under Section 395 !PC 
about forcible taking away of articles of self and husband-Police final 
report stating that no offence committed-Fresh complaint-Magistrate's 
order registering the case-Appellate Court ordering re-examination-
Registration of case on re-examination of complainant and witnesses-
High Court quashing criminal proceedings holding that dispute was of civil 
. nature-Held High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings. 
The appellant lodged a complaint in the Xlth Court of Metro-
politan Magistrate, Secunderabad under Section 395 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Dowry Act, 1961 against 
the respondents- relatives alleging that they forcibly removed articles 
belonging to her and her husband. The appellant's case was that after 
the death of her husband, the respondents broke open the lock and took 
away all the valuable articles including household items and ornaments 
mentioned in the complaint. 
However, the police submitted a final report to the Magistrate 
stating that no offence under Section 395 has been committed and that 
the articles mentioned in the complaint were not dowry articles. 
Thereafter the appellant filed another complaint under Sections 173 
and 156(3) read with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 
contending that the police had not properly investigated the case. The 
Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that a case under Section 395 of the 
Indian Penal Code be registered against the respondents. The 
respondents preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the 
Metropolitan Session Judge who directed the Metropolitan Magistrate 
to re-examine the case. Thereafter the respondent filed application for 
discharge on the ground that there was delay in registering the 
complaint but the same was dismissed. Pursuant to the order of 
Metropolitan Sessions Judge the Metropolitan Magistrate re-examined 
the appellant and her witnesses and on consideration of their evidence 
ordered that a case under Section 380 IPC should be registered against 
596 
A. E. RANI v. V.S.R. SARMA 
597 
the respondents. The respondents filed an application under Section A 
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court which 
quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents on the 
ground that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature; the 
appellant had issued a notice demanding partition of the proper1ies but 
the respondent denied her right of partition. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appe:lant 
that the High Court erred in its conclusion inasmuch as consideration 
of the dispute regarding claim for partition of immovable properties 
was wholly extraneous to the consideration of maintainability of the 
criminal case for the offences as alleged by the complainant. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the complaint 
was also liable to be. quashed as the same was made at a belated stage 
and the same has resulted in the abuse of the process of law. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
B 
c 
~~rt 
D 
HELD: 1. The High Court has proceeded on an erroneous 
assumption that on the basis of old depositions, the Magistrate took 
cognizance of the complaint and registered the case for the second time. 
The Magistrate, as a matter of fact, has taken such cognizance on re-
examinat!on_ of the complainant and her witnesses. Further the E 
question of a· civil dispute regarding the claim of share in immovable 
property has nothing to do with consideration of the complaint made 
by the appellant about forcible removal of movable articles belonging 
to the husband of the appellant. [601 F to E] 
2. In the circumstances of the case it cannot be held that on the p 
score of lodging complaint at a belated stage, the complaint is liable to 
be quashed in limine by treating it stale. [602 A] 
3. The Magistrate after examining the appellant and her witnesses 
has become prima facie satisfied about the complainant's case and has 
registered the same for proceeding further in accordance with law. G 
Therefore, it cannot reasonably be contended that the same is an abuse 
of the process of law and for ends of justice, such complaint is required 
to be 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.