LexSMT. VANKA RADHAMANOHARI versus VANKE VENKATA REDDY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Sl\IT. V ANKA RADHAMANOHARI
v.
VANKE VEN KATA REDDY AND ORS.
APRIL 20. 1993
f KlJLDIP SINGH AND N.P. SIN<;H, JJ.f
Criminul Procedure Cnde 1973 : Secrh111s 4M<. 473-
Li111ita1h111--ApplicaNfity of-Ma1rh11011ial <)flences like cruelly, hy
l1ttsha11d and 111e111hers n.f 1/re .fa111ily-U11der Secthlll 49RA <I( l.P. C.
Application rf Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code for an
<ffence <!l Sec1111d marn·age under Section 494 l.P.C.
Sn1io11 4/<.2 Criminal Procedure C(lde Applic.a1io11-Can 1/Je pro-
ceedings he/ore /Hag is/rare he quasliedfordefay hy Hig/J Cour1--U11der
Sec1io11 4(18 (Ir wliet/Jer Sec/ion 473 la he opplied in tlu! i111eres1 of
j11.\1ice-Tl1e 11011 ohs1a111e clause <if Sec1io11 473 and irs m·er-riding
elfecr-£.\pfained.
Crimi11af Procedure Code 1973: Secrion 482-Quasl1i11g of pro-
ceedings hej(1re Magisrrare hy tile Hig/J Court-No cogni:ance <f
offence under Sec lion 498A l.P. C. ajier e.\piry rf rliree vears-\lafidity
r~(
Ma.rim-Vigila111ihus. ii 11on-dormie11tibus, jura suh1·e11iu11i-
Appfical1ifi1y rf-ln ca.l'es 1f11wrri111011ial <Jf{e11ces like cruelly.
Hosie dUference herween t/Je limitarion under Sec1ion 473 and
A
B
c
E
Sec1io11 5 of Ille Limitation Act-£.\plained.
F
A complaint petition was tiled hefore the l\.lugistrate h~· the
Appellant that she was ill-treated and suhjected to cruelty b~· hushand
- the accused respondent, and her in-laws, and that during the
suhsistance of their marriage he married again and got a second wife.
The High Court on an application tiled h~· the accused respon-
dent under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. <1uashed the Criminal Proceedings,
holdin~ that it was time harred s~nce after three ~·ears con~nizance
c~mnot he taken of' an offence under Section 498 A of the Penal Code,
287
H
SI 'l'REME C'Ol 'RT REPORTS
[ l<J1Jl] ~ S.< '.R
A in ,·iew of the Section 468 of the Criminal 1•rocedure Code.
Allowing the Appeal, the Court,
HELi>: 1. In ,·iew of tht' allt'gation that complainant was heing
U subjected to cruelty hy the respondt'nt the High Court should haYe
held that it was in the interest of justice to take congnizance e\·en of
the offence under Section 49HA of the Penal Code ignoring the har of
Section 46H of the Cr.P.C. (295-Cl
2. In ,·iew of tht' allegation of Secon~ marriai.:e during the
c continuance of the first marriage. prime-fll<:ie an offence under
St'ction 494 of the Penal Code which is punishable h~· imprisonment
for a term which ma~· t'Xtt'nd to se\·en years and when the same was
disdosed in the complaint hefore the l\lagistrate, tht're was no qut's-
tion of Sedion 46H of ·the Pemtl Code heing applicahle since the
I> imprisonment prescribed there is onl~· upto thrt'e years. (291-F)
E
F
3. In ,·iewofSection 473oftheCr.P.C. acourtcan takecongnizance
of an offence e\·en after the period prescrihed under Section 4Mt. if the
court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the cast'. that it is
necessary so to do in the interest of justice. Section 47 3 has a 11011-
obsta11te clause which.means that said section has an oYerridingeffect
on Section 46H~ if tht' court is satisfied on facts and in the dn·um-
stances or a parti'iular case. that either the dela~· has ht'en properly
explained or that it is nel·essar~· to do so in the interest of justice
(292-E-F)
4. ft is only· as a hist resort that a wife open!~· comes hefore a court
to unfold and relate the day-to-day: torture and cruelty· faced hy her
inside the house,. which many· of such ,·ictims do not like to he made
public. As such courts while considering the ttuestion of limitation for
<; an offence under Section 49H A i.e. suhjecting a "'.omen to cruelty· h~·
her hushund or the relath·e of her husband, should judge that
question in the light of Section 473 of the CrJ•.c.which ret1uires the
Court, not only· to examine as to whether the delay· has heen properl~·
explained, hut as to whether "It is necessary· to do so in the interest of
.Justice" (,293-H, 294-A)
H
S!\H. YENKA .-. Y. Y. REDDY
2X9
S. l\lan~· courts are treating prm·isions ofSections4<18 and 473 of
A
tlie code as prO\"isions parallel to the period of limitation proYided
under the limitation Act and power of condonation of dela~· under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But there isa hasic difference hetween
Section 5 of Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code. For exercise
of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the
applicant to satist)· the 'court that thereExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.