LexPREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1168 PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2010) AUGUST 13, 2010 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Exercise of - Criminal complaint u!s. 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B and ss. 3 and 4 of the 1961 Act against immediate relatives of husband - Issuance of summons - Challenge to, by o complainant's-married sister-in-law and brother-in-law (appellants) - High Court dismissing the petition - On appeal, held: There were no specific a/legations against appellants · in the complaint nor any role was ascribed to them by witnesses - Said relatives were living in different cities and E never visited or rarely visited the complainant's place - Their implication in the complaint was meant to harass and humiliate them - Permitting the complainant to pursue the complaint would be an abuse of the process of law - In the interest of justice, complaint against appellants is quashed - Order of High Court is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. F 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4. G H Inherent powers of courts' - Scope and ambit of - Explained. Legislation: Increase in criminal complaints u/s. 498-A /PC - Large number of complaints u/s. 498-A not bonafide, but filed with oblique motive - Need for legislature to take a 1168 PREETI GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND &1169 ANR. serious re-look of the entire provision and make suitable A changes in the existing law. Ethics: Legal ethics - Increase in criminal complaints u/ s. 498-A !PC - Duty of advocates - Held: Advocates must maintain noble traditions of the profession - They must 8 ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact - They should treat every complaint uls. 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. Respondent no. 2 was married to 'K'. She filed a criminal complaint under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-8 of the Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 c of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law and D married sister-in-law. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the appellants, namely, the married sister-in-law and the unmarried brother-in-law. The appellants challenged the order of summoning on the ground that there was no specific E allegation in the entire complaint against them; that they had been falsely implicated in the criminal case since they had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided. The High Court dismissed the petition. Therefore, the F appellants filed the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, G for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the H 1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A process of court, and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Para 15] [1178-D-E] 1.2 The powers possessed by the High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of the powers requires great caution in its exercise. The court 8 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 C 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 was noi. collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they D cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court would exercise its extra- ordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any E stage. [Para 17] [1179-C-E] R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.