RAMESH AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 03-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
MARCH 3. 2005 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860/Dowry Prohibition Act: 
ss. 498-A and 406/ss. 3 and 4-Wife alleging commission of offences 
under these sections against her husband and his relatives-Allegation against C 
husband's sister that she was insulting and making derogatory remarks and 
behaving rudely against her-Held, neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet 
jim1ished legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences 
alleged against husband's sister-She could not be relegated to ordeal of 
trial-Proceedings against her quashed-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: D 
s.482-Constitution of India-Article 136. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
ss. 482, 406, 407, 468 and 473-Quashing of procedings on ground of 
delay-Ascertaining territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence- E 
Transfer of proceedings pending in different courts-Complaint by wife before 
Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, against her husband and his relatives alleging 
commission of offences by them u!ss. 498-A and 406 /PC and ss. 3 and 4 of 
Dowry Prohibition Act-Accused filing writ petition before Mumbai High 
Court for quashing the proceedings or in the alternative to transfer the FIR 
to Mumbai-later, petition u!s 482 filed before Madras High Court to quash F 
the proceedings as barred by limitation as also for lack of territorial 
jurisdiction-Held, prosecution cannot be nullified at the very threshold on 
the ground that prescribed period of limitation had expired-On facts, complaint 
was registered much before expiry of period of limitation-However, the process 
of investigation and filing of charge-sheet took its own time-Consequently, G 
process of taking cognizance delayed-Further, at the instance of the accused, 
High Court had also granted interim stay-It is in this background that the 
delay has to be viewed-It is a fit case where benefit of s.473 should be 
extended to the informant-lady-As regards territorialjurisdiction of Judicial 
Magistrate, Trichy, on looking the complaint at its face value, the ~ffences 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A alleged cannot be said to have been committed whol~v or partly within the 
local jurisdiction of court at Trichy-Almost all the allegations pertain to acts 
committed in matrimonial home at Mumbai-However, there if one allegation 
relevant to s.498-A alleged to have been committed in Chennai-Further, 
earlier, the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was 
transferred from Trichy to Family Court at Chennai-Therefore, the criminal 
B case in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Trichy shall be transferred to the 
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chennai and the case pending in the 
Family Court at Mumbai filed by the husband shall be transferred to Principal 
Family Court at Chennai. 
C 
Arun Vyas v. Anita V:vas, (1999) 4 SCC 690 and Y. Abraham Ajith and 
D 
Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr., (20041 8 SCC 100, referred 
to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 372 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2003 of the Madras High 
Court in Crl.O.P. No. 27404 of 2003. 
WITH 
E 
Crl.A. No. 373/2005 and T.P. (C) No. 603 of 2003. 
F 
G 
P.P. Rao, Sanjay Parikh, Ms.Anitha Shenoy, A.N. Singh and Abinash 
Mishra for the Appellants. 
K.K. Mani for the Petitioner in T.P. (C) No. 603/2003. 
. R.Ayyam Perumal, S. Vallinayagam, G. Umapathy, B. Balaji, S. 
Gowthaman, Satya Mitra Garg and Badri Prasad Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
!--eave granted. 
The two appeals filed by five accused (three in one case and two in 
another) arise out of two identical orders passed by the Madras High Court 
on 7.8.2003 and 21.8:f003 dismissing the petitions filed by them under Section 
482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.', for short) by which a prayer 
H was made to quash the chargre-sheet and the consequential proceedings in 
--
RAMESH v. STATE OF T.N. 
495 
C.C. No. 72/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Tiruchirapalli A 
('Trichy' for short), Tamil Nadu Sate. The wife of the I st appellant in the 
appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 5735/2003, filed a complaint on 23.6.1999 
with the All Women Police Station, Trichy alleging the commission of offences 
under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Allegations were made
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.