SUNITA JAIN versus PAWAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 58 
·-t-
A 
SUNITAJAIN 
v. 
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2008) 
B 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 ~73; Ss. 362 and 482: 
., 
c 
Quashing of criminal proceedings - Demand of dowry -
Torturing of wife by her husband and in-laws - Lodging of FIR 
by wife. - Police filing Chai/an against husband and in-laws of 
victim ulss.498A, 506, 406 rlw s.34 IPC and also ulss.3 & 4 of 
Dowty .Prohibition Act - Framing of charges by trial Court -
Challenge to - Quashing charges against brother and sister 
D of husband of the victim, High Court dismissed the petition as 
against.other accused persons - SLP dismissed by Supreme 
Court - Husband and his parents filing petition for invoking 
s.482 of the Code - Allowed by High Court - Correctness of -
~ 
Held: Incorrect - Trial Court satisfied that prima facie case 
E made out against accused husband and his parents and 
framed charges against them - Order of trial Court upheld by 
High Court as against husband and his parents - Special 
Leave Petition also dismissed by Supreme Court, thus, 
upholding framing of charges against accused husband and 
F his parents - In terms of s. 362 of the Code, as soon as 
Judgment pronounced by a Court, it becomes functus officio 
'1 
and has no power to review, override, alter or interfere with the 
order passed by it - Power of review is not an inherent power 
and must be conferred on a Court by express provisions to 
G that effect- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 
High Court erred in exercising power uls. 482 of the Code in 
~ 
quashing criminal proceedings - Hence, order of the High 
Court set aside - Appropriate Court to decide the matter in 
accordance with law-, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 34, 406, 
H 
58 
.. 
-+-
SUNITA JAIN v. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN & ORS. 
59 
). 
498A and 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Ss. 3 & 4 - Demand A 
of dowry- Harassment of wife by husband - Power of judicial 
review - Scope of 
Inherent power- Exercise of- Held: It must be exercised 
in rarest of rare cases. 
8 
According to the appellant, she was married to 
respondent No.1 and remained with him for a few days. 
t 
She gave birth to twins. She allegeQ that her husband and 
in-laws had been harassing her for demand of dowry. 
h 
When the demand was not met with, her husband even 
assaulted her causing injury to her, torturing her physically c 
and mentally. The appellant informed her father about the 
ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws; 
and that her children had been taken away by them and 
were not allowed to see her. The appellant was again D 
assaulted and severely beaten by her husband and was 
also compelled to sign a document purported to be a 
compromise deed between her husband and herself. She 
, 
lodged a complaint in the Police Station. Respondent No.1 
was called at the Police Station, he assured in writing that 
he would not ill treat the appellant. When respondent No.1 
E 
was transferred from Raipur to Raigarh, appellant was 
allegedly not taken by respondent No.1 along with him. 
Later, he sent a notice through advocate to father of the 
appellant informing him about filing of a divorce petition. 
.. 
The appellant's father brought her with him. Later, the F 
~ 
appellant lodged First Information Report (FIR) in Women 
Police Station giving details about physical and mental 
torture meted out to her by respondent No.1 and his family 
members. Non-bailable warrants were issued against 
them. 
G 
~ 
~ 
Respondent No.1 filed a petition for grant of bail and 
made a statement in the High Court that he had settled 
the dispute amicably with his wife and both of them had 
decided to live together. High Court granted bail to 
respondent No.1 and his parents. In the meantime, Police 
H 
60 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A filed Challan against the respondents for committing 
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 406 read 
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also under 
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Trial Court 
framed charges against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also 
B against brother and sister of respondent No.1. All the 
accused challenged the action of framing of charge 
against them in the High Court by filing a Revision 
Petition. The High Court partly allowed the revision and 
quashed charges against brother and sister of 
c respondent No.1. The High Court, however, held that so

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