LexM. SARAVANA PORSELVI versus A.R. CHANDRASHEKAR @ PARTHIBAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2008] 9 S.C.R. 937 M. SARAVANA PORSELVI V. A.R. CHANDRASHEKAR @ PARTHIBAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.967 of 2008) MAY 27, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA] I I Code of eriminal Procedure, 1973: A B ss.482 and 468 - Customary divorce - Agreement for, registered - Permanent alimony to wife - Ten years thereat- . C ter, wife filed complaint petition against husband and parents- in-law before the Women Cell on the ground that the husband had married for the second time - FiR lodged - Husband and parents-in-law filed application for quashing of the FIR - High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction uls.482 CrPC, allowed the D application - Justification of - Held: Justified - Since parties living separately for more than ten years, case under s.498A /PC not made out at such a distant point of time, particularly in view of the bar-of limitation as contained in s.468 CrPC - Even otherwise, on facts, it is unbelievable that the wife was E really harassed by her husband or in-laws- Though there does not exist any period of limitation in respect of offence under s. 494, but no a/legation was made out in regard to commis- sion of said offence so far as the parents-in-law are concerned - If it is a case of customary divorce, question in regard to F existence of good custom may have to be gone into, in a civil proceeding - But criminal prosecution shall not lie - It was initiated ma/a fide - If allowed to continue, same shall be abuse of the process of Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 494- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- s.13(1)(a) -Abuse of Court. G The parties entered into an agreement for divorce in 1996 which was registered in the office of the Joint Sub- Registrar. The said divorce purportedly took place in terms of the custom prevailing in the community to which 937 H 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 9 S.C.R. A the parties belong. Appellant-wife also received a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards permanent alimony which was ac- knowledged by granting a stamped receipt therefor. Re- spondent No.1 married again in 1998. In 2006, Appellant filed a complaint petition against 8 Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., her husband and par- ents-in-law before the Women Cell, inter alia, on the premise that Respondent No.1 had married for the sec- ond time which fact she came to learn on receipt of sum- mons in respect of a petition filed by Respondent No.1 C under s.13(1 )(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged pursuant to the said complaint. Respondents were thereafter arrested. An ap- plication for qu?.shing the said FIR was filed before the High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the D said application has been allowed. Appellant submitted before this Court, that in a case of this nature, wh~re investigation into the allegations made in the complaint has been going on, the High Court should not have passed the impugned judgment, upon E entering into the purported defence raised by the Respon· dents, particularly when the State itself, in its counter affi- davit filed before the High Court, categorically stated that a prima facie case had been made out for investigation. F Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, however, submitted that ma/a fide on the part of Appellant was evident in view of the fact that the complaint petition was filed 10 years af· ter the divorce and that such complaint petition should be considered to be an abuse of the process of the Court. G The question which arose for consideration before H this Court is as to whether the High Court, in a case of this nature, could exercise its jurisdiction under s.482, CrPC. Dismissing the appeal, the Court _, M. SARAVANA PORSELVI v. A.R CHANDRASHEKAR 939 @PARTHIBAN HELD: 1. The customary divorce may be legal or ille- A gal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered into or the Appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered one. Appellant being in the le- gal profession must be held to be aware of the legal im- B plication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been liv- ing separately for more than ten years. How then a case under s.498A of IPC can be said to have been made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the ques- c tion, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as con- tained in s.4
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.