SANAPAREDDY MAHEEDHAR AND ANR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAN AP AREDDY MAHEEDHAR AND ANR 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] 
CodeofCriminalProcedure, 1973;Ss.188, 468, 470, 473&482/ 
c 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 406 and 498A/Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; 
Ss. 4 & 6: 
Matrimonial offences-Court's power to take cognizance beyond 
period of limitation-Quashing of proceedings before Magistrate on 
ground of limitation-Held: In the interest a/justice, court could take 
D cognizance of an offence after expiry of limitation period by liberally 
exercising power uls.473 Cr.P.C.-High Court should be extremely 
cautious and slow to interfere with investigation/trial of criminal 
cases-It could exercise inherent powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. only when it 
is satisfied that FIR does not disclose commission of cognizable offence 
E or prosecution is barred by limitation or to prevent abuse of process 
of the Court or continuation of proceeding of the criminal case would 
result in failure a/justice-Magistrate took cognizance of offence after 
lapse of three years-A co-ordinate Bench of High Court quashed the 
proceeding qua the parents of appellants on the ground that Magistrate 
.. 
F could not have taken cognizance of offence after three years-
Appellants do not appear to have drawn attention of Single Judge of 
the High Court about quashing of the said proceedings-Jn such 
peculiar facts of the case, continuation of the proceedings would 
amount to abuse of process of the Court-Hence, the proceedings as 
G against accused, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 
quashed-Limitation-Courts power to relax. 
~-
Appellant No.1, an engineer working in USA, married the eldest 
daughter of respondent no. 2. Before marriage, the appellant and their 
H 
478 
' 
) 
SANAPAREDDY MAHEEDHAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA 479 
PRADESH 
parents demanded certain amount of cash and jewellery as dowry. They A 
also demanded transfer of certain property belonging to the parents of 
the girl in favour of the parents of appellant No.l. Appellant No.1 and 
his parents accepted the proposal and performed betrothal. Later, they 
demanded Zen car and threatened to cancel the engagement unless the 
car was given. The demand was fulfilled by the parents of the girl by B 
raising loan. After marriage, when she went to USA along with the 
parents of the appellants, she stayed at New Jersey in U.S.A. from 
1.11.1998 to 2.12.1998. During this period, she was allegedly subjected 
to cruelty and harassment by the appellants and their parents for 
demand of more and more dowry. She left her matrimonial home and C 
stayed with her relatives. Later, appellant No.1 instituted divorce 
petition in Superior Court at New Jersey and an ex parte decree was 
passed in his favour. In the meanwhile, the victim informed to her 
parents about the ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and 
his parents. Thereupon, respondent no. 2-motherofthevictim, filed a D 
complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate 
referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P .C. 
After investigation, the Inspector of Police, Women Protection Cell, 
C.I.D., submitted the final report with the suggestion to close the case. 
The Investigating Officer also made a reference to the direction given E 
by Additional Director General of Police, CID to close the case due to 
lack of evidence. The Magistrate rejected the final report and directed 
the police to make further investigation. The police conducted further 
investigation and a Notice was also issued to the victim to appear before 
CID Police. Respondent no. 2 filed a Criminal Petition under Section F 
482 Cr.P .C. for quashing the notice for appearance of her daughter. The 
same was disposed of by the Single Judge with liberty to the petitioner 
to approach the investigating agency/Court and inform it about the 
efforts being made by her daughter to come to India. Respondent no. 2 
also filed a Writ Petition for issuance of a direction to the Regional G 
Passport Officer to impound the passport of appellant no.1. That petition 
was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. The victim obtained 
duplicate passport and visa and came to India. She appeared before 
the Investigating Officer and gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 
The police filed a charge-sheet UJ!der Sections 498A and 406 IPC read H 
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act. The M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.