LexSMT. CHAND DHAWAN versus JAWAHAR LAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SMT. CHAND DHAWAN
A
v.
__..(
JAWAHAR LAL AND ORS.
APRIL 28, 1992 .
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.]
B
./ ·---{
Criminal Law
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 482-lnherent jurisdiction-Exercise of-Criminal proceed- c
--...
)-
ings-When could be quashed-Whether High Court justified in· quashing the
complaint when allegations prima f acie constitute an offence.
).-
The appellant was married to the first respondent. After sometime
the s119uses started living separately. A spurt of litigation followed there- D
after. While proceedings for dissolution of the marriage, custody of the
minor children and criminal prosecution were pending between the par-
ties, the appellant instituted a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, for bigamy alleging that the first respondent bad subsequently
married the second respondent and that the parents of the Respondents E
No. 1 and 2, in conspiracy intentionally abetted the performance of the
second marriage with the full knowledge that the first marriage of the first
r
respondent with the appellant was subsisting. Respondents No. 1 and 2
and their parents were arrayed as accused. After recording the statement
on oath of the complainant and two witnesses, the magistrate took cog-
nizance of the complaint for offences under sections 494 and 109 l.P.C., F
and issued summons to the accused persons. The accused appeared before
court and were released on bail. Thereafter on an application moved by
the first respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed
the complaint and the subsequent proceedings, holding that in view of the
·r-
contradictions which went to the root of the case including the jurisdiction G
-
of the trial court to take cognizance and proceed with the complaint in
question, the continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the complaint
....
before the trial court would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
In the appeal, by special leave, before this Court on behalf of the
)-~,
appellant-wife, it was contended that the High Court, in exercising the H
837
!~
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992] 2 S.C.R.
A jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., bad ·11,1ade a probe into the truth-
f'Ulness of the allegations made and proceeded to analyse the evidence
which could be produeed in support of the allegations overlooking the
well-settled principle laid down for guidance in this regard.
B
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the circumstan-
ces of the case had necessarily to . be taken into account to determine
whether the allegations made by the complainant were frivolous or
vexatious and actuated by oblique motive and that in the facts and cir-
cumstances of the instant ~se, where the factum of the alleged marria~
stood disproved by the contradictory' statement made earlier to the com-
c plainant, the proceedings could not be justified and the High Court had
rightly quashed the same.
Allowing the appeal, partly, this Court,
HELD : 1.1. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of
D quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the
complaint do not constitute an otTence or that the exercise of the power is
necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid
formula can be set c.ut and it depends upon the facts and circumstances
E
F
of each case wherein· such power should be exercised. When the allegations
in the complaint prim a f acie constitute the otTence against ~ny or all of the
respondents, in the absence of materials on record to show that the
continuance ·of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the
court or would defeat the ends of justice1 the High Court would not be
justified in quashing the complaint. [842 D-F]
1.2. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint are specific
and clear that during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage, respon-
dent Nos. 1 and 2 have entered into a second marriage and have thereby
committed an offence falling under section 494 I.P.C. The complainant had
affirmed the fact on oath. The two witnesses produced by the complainant
G before the magistrate have supported that case. Based on the statement
on oath of the complainant read along with the evidence of the two
witnesses thus recorded and the materials available before the magistrate
to get h~mself satisfieExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.