LexINDERJIT SINGH GREWAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 557 INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2011) AUGUST 23, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Parties obtained decree of divorce by mutual consent - Complaint filed by wife before the police under the Protection of Women c from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 that the divorce decree was sham - Subsequently, criminal complaint also filed under the 2005 Act before another district - Meanwhile husband filed an application u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint - Subsequently, wife filed a civil suit for declaration 0 that decree for divorce was null and void as it was obtained by fraud - During pendency, application by wife for grant of custody of minor child as also FIR lodged ulss. 406, 376 and 120-B /PC - 'Application filed uls. 482 for quashing the complaint dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, held: E Wife herself had been a party to the alleged fraud committed by the husband upon the civil court for getting the decree of divorce and asked the criminal court to sit in appeal against the judgment and decree of the competent civil court - Complaint was filed before the Magistrate, Jalandhar while the decree of divorce had been granted by the District Judge, Ludhiana i.e. of another district - It cannot be understood as under what circumstances a subordinate criminal court can sit in appeal against the judgment and order of the superior civil court, having a different territorial jurisdiction - Decree F of civil court for divorce stiff subsists - Suit to declare the said G judgment and decree as a nullity is still pending consideration before the competent court - Permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the 2005 Act is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce 557 H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. A which still subsists - It amounts to abuse of the process of the court - Impugned judgment and order is set aside - Complaint pending befo1e the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all orders passed therein are quashed - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. B c D Judgment/Order - Order obtained by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority - Sustainability of - Held: Such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law as fraud unravels everything - Fraud and justice never dwell together. Judgment/Order- Setting aside of an order/decree, even if void or void ab initio - Held: Declaration has to be obtained from the competent court - It cannot be obtained in collateral proceedings. Word and Phrases - Fraud - Meaning of. Maxims - Al/egans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus - Held: Person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum. The marriage of appellant-husband and respondent E No. 2-wife was dissolved by mutual consent. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the police against the appellant under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that the decree of divorce obtained by them was a sham transaction F since even after divorce, both of them had been living together as husband and wife. In the enquiry conducted and the legal opinion sought it was opined that no case was made out against the appellant. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under the 2005 Act G and the Magistrate summoned the minor child of the parties for counselling. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the said· complaint Meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the decree for divorce was null H and void as it had been obtained by fraud. During INDERJIT SINGH GREWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB & 559 ANR. pendency of the suit, respondent No. 2 filed an A application for grant of custody and guardianship of the minor child which is pending consideration; and also lodged an FIR u/ss. 406, 376 and 120-B IPC against the appellant and his mother and sister. Thereafter, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant u/ B s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the C competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.