LexPRIYA VRAT SINGH & ORS. versus SHYAM JI SAHAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 897 PRIYA VRAT SINGH & ORS. v. SHYAM JI SAHAI (Criminal Appeal No. 1230 of 2008) AUGUST 5, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) A B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Criminal proceedings against husband uls 494, 120 B and s. 109 /PC and s. 3 and 4 of the Dowry C Prohibition Act, 1961 - Appeal uls 482 for quashing criminal proceedings - Set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: In view of the parameters laid down for exercise of power u/s 482, criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 494, 120 B and 109 - Dowry Prohi- bition Act, 1961 - ss. 3 and 4. D Appellant no. 3 was married to appellant no. 1. The relations between the parties became strained and they started living separately in the same house. Thereafter, appellant no. 3-wife left her matrimonial home and started living with her parents. Meanwhile, appellant no. 1-hus- E band filed suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and harassment meted out to him by wife. The suit was decreed ex parte. After the expiry of the limitation period for filing appeal, the appellant no. 1 married N. Two years later, appellant no. 3 filed a complaint against the F appellant no. 1 and his family members alleging re-mar- riage by appellant no. 1, dowry demand and harassment u/s 494, 120 B and s. 109 IPC and s. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Appellant no. 3 also filed restora- tion petition for recalling the ex parte order which was al- G lowed later. Appellant no. 1 filed application before the Special Court of Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed . ...- Appellant no. 1 then filed petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. High Court dismissed the same. Hence, the present appeal. 897 H 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A Appellant no. 1 contended that the marriage of ap- pellant No. 1 with appellant no. 3 is protected u/s 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, thus, the proceedings u/s. 494 IPC are not maintainable; that the allegation· of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time in Decem- B ber, 1994 when the complaint was filed; that the dowry torture was made some time in 1992; that there is no ex- planation as to why for more than two years no action was taken.; that in the Complaint Petition apart from the husband, other relatives were impleaded as party and no c role has been specifically ascribed to them except the hus- band; and that inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The powers possessed by the High Court t,- D under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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 ex- ':- E ercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain .. from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the ,- entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the F Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of r:nagnitude and cannot be seen in their true per- .. spective 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 proceeding at any stage. [Para 7] [902- ) G F,G, 903-A,B] ;:-- ' 2. In -view of the parameters laid down for exercise of -f ~ I power u/s 482 of the Code, the proceedings in the crimi- nal case pending before the Special CJM, Varanasi stand H quashed. [Paras 5 and 9] [901-F, 903-D] PRIYA VRAT SINGH & ORS. v. SHYAM JI SAHAI 899 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary 1992 (4) SCC 305; A Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1; Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar 2006 (4) SCC 359; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1952 (supp.) 1 SCC 335 - relied on. Case Law Reference 1992 (4) sec 305 AIR 1964 SC 1 2006 (4) sec 359 Relied on. Para 7 Relied on. Para 7 Relied on. Para 7 1952 (supp.) 1 SCC 335 Relied on. Para 8 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1230 of 2008 B c From the final Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2004 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.