SUNDAR BABU AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 19-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 326 
SUNDAR BABU AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2003) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing 
C of proceedings - Complaint against husband, his parents, 
sister and maternal grandmother under s.498A /PC and s.4 
of the Dowry Prohibition Act - Husband had purportedly left 
for USA six months after marriage - Complaint was filed long 
thereafter - No explanation for delayed lodging of complaint 
D - Petition under s.482 CrPC - Dismissed - On appeal, held: 
Scope for interference under s.482 is limited - However, 
interference can be made in cases as spelt out in Bhajan Lal's 
case - On facts, cursory perusal of complaint shows that the 
case at hand falls within category (7) of the illustrative 
E parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal's case - High Court 
erred in dismissing petition under s.482 CrPC - Penal Code, 
1860 - s.498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.4. 
The wife of appellant no.1 filed a complaint against 
.-
him and his parents, sister and maternal grandmother 
F alleging commission of offences punishable under s.498A 
IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Appellant 
no.1 had purportedly left for USA six months after 
marriage. The complaint was filed long thereafter. No 
explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was 
G given. 
Appellants filed petition under s.482 CrPC 
contending that the complaint petition was nothing but 
an attempt to falsely implicate them and that continuance 
H 
326 
.. --
i 
.,. 
SUNDAR BABU AND ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
327 
of proceedings against them would be an abuse of the A 
process of law. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Though the scope for interference while B 
exercising jurisdiction under Sec.482 CrPC is limited, but 
it can be made in cases as spelt out in the case of Bhajan 
Lal. The illustrative examples laid down. therein are as 
follows: 1) Where the allegations made in the first 
information report or the complaint, even if they are taken C 
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not 
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case 
against the accused; 2) Where the allegations in the first 
information report and other materials, if any, 
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable o 
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers 
under Sec.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a 
Magistrate within the purview of Sec.155(2) of the Code; 
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the E 
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and 
make out a case against the accused; 4) Where, the 
allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable 
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no 
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an 
F 
order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155 (2) 
of the Code; 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or 
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the 
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just 
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding G 
against the accused; 6) Where there is an express legal 
bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the 
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is 
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious 
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; 7) 
where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with 
ma/a fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously 
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance 
8 on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private 
and personal grudge. [Para 6] [332-8-H; 333-A-C] 
1.2. Section 482 CrPC does not confer any new 
power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent 
power which the Court possessed before the enactment 
C of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under 
which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, 
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent 
abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise 
secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor 
D desirab

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