A.E.Rani Vs. V.S.R. Sarma [1994] INSC 684
(14 December 1994)
RAY, G.N. (J) RAY, G.N. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 627 JT 1995 (1) 351
1994 SCALE (5)275
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.N. RAY, J.-
1.
Leave
granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated
14-10-1993 in Crl. M.P No. 1572 of 1993. By the aforesaid order, the Andhra
Pradesh High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, quashed the proceedings issued in Crl. M.P. No. 1626 of
1993 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, XIth Court, Secunderabad.
3.
The
relevant facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant was married
to one Shri V. Raja Rao under the Special Marriage Act on 18-3-1983 and the
appellant and her husband lived together up to 16-11-1983. Thereafter, the
husband of the appellant went to Saudi Arabia and was working there. He
returned in February 1986, but on the ill-advice of the respondents, the
husband's attitude towards the appellant changed and the said husband started
consuming liquor heavily. The husband of the appellant thereafter went to Dubai
and returned to India sometime in September 1988 and after a short stay for
about seven days, he again left for Saudi Arabia and returned to India in
January 1989. The husband of the appellant on every occasion of his return from
the Gulf countries, brought valuable articles including household items and ornaments.
The respondents + From the Judgment and Order
dated 14-10-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. P.No. 1572 of 1993
628 used to take away most of those items from the petitioner's husband
forcibly. On 15-11-1989, the appellant's husband attempted to commit suicide
and ultimately died on 19-11- 1989. After the death of the husband of the
appellant, the respondents took away all the articles belonging to the
appellant and her husband by breaking open the lock of the door. The appellant
filed a complaint on 12-6-1990 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure in the XIth Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The said
complaint was lodged under Section 395 IPC and also under Section 6 of the
Dowry Act against 8 persons including the respondents. The learned Metropolitan
Magistrate XIth Court forwarded the said complaint for investigation and report
by the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On such
direction, the Station House Officer, Police Station Bowenpally, Secunderabad,
registered FIR No. 106 of 1990 on 18-6-1990 and commenced investigation. The
police conducted a search at the residences of Shri V. Chalapathy Rao, father
of the appellant's husband and Smt B. Sarojini Devi and seized certain articles
found in their houses. Another search was conducted by the police at the
residence of Shri V Srihari, but no article was seized. The police, however,
submitted a final report before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate XIth Court
to the effect that no offence under Section 395 IPC had been committed and the
articles alleged in the complaint were not the dowry articles. On 11-2-1991,
the appellant filed a complaint under Section 173 and Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 190 of Code of Criminal Procedure
contending that the police had not properly investigated the case. The learned
Metropolitan Magistrate ordered to post the said complaint for enquiry under
Section 202 CrPC. The appellant's case is that during the course of
investigation, it was revealed that the husband of the petitioner, while
working at Saudi Arabia had purchased various articles during the span of six
years. Because of the ill-treatment and harassment of the appellant in the
hands of respondents, the husband of the petitioner became frustrated and
attempted to commit suicide and ultimately died. After the death of the
husband, the respondents broke open the lock and took away all the valuable
articles mentioned in the complaint petition from the house where the appellant
used to live with the deceased husband. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on
the basis of the facts revealed from the investigation, prima facie found that
A-1 to A-6 have committed offence under Section 395 IPC.
Accordingly, a criminal case was ordered to
be registered.
4.
Such
order was challenged by the appellant before the learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge. On 4-5-1992, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, IInd Court, set
aside the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court, by allowing
the criminal revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed
that the witnesses cited by the appellant should be examined and thereafter or
taking into consideration of the depositions, the learned Magistrate would
proceed further. 629
5.
On
4-5-1993, the respondents filed an application before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Xlth Court inter alia praying for discharging the respondents
alleging enormous delay in registering the complaint. Such application was,
however, dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court on
28-6-1993.
6.
The
learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth Court thereafter reexamined the complaint
and her witnesses and after taking into consideration of such deposition, he
again registered the case under Section 380 IPC against accused A-2 to A-4.
7.
The
respondents moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code for quashing the proceedings issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
1626 of 1993 registering the complaint filed by the appellant. The High Court
by the impugned judgment dated 14-10-1993, allowed the said application under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
1572 of 1993 and quashed the said criminal proceedings arising out of the
complaint made by the appellant before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Xlth
Court.
8.
Mr
Krishnamani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended
that the High Court has quashed the said criminal proceedings entirely on
erroneous premises inasmuch as the High Court wrongly assumed that although,
the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint and
registering the same without examining all the witnesses of the complainant was
set aside and he was directed to consider the question of registering the case
after examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Magistrate again
took cognizance of the complaint and registered the same on consideration of
the earlier depositions. Such finding is factually erroneous. Mr Krishnamani
has submitted that after the matter was sent back to the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, the complainant and the witnesses were examined and on
consideration of such evidence the complaint was registered by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. Mr Krishnamani has also submitted that for quashing
the said criminal proceedings, the High Court has considered irrelevant facts.
One of the reasons indicated by the High Court for quashing the criminal case
is that the appellant had issued a notice demanding partition of properties to
which the respondents replied by denying the appellant's right for partition.
The High Court has held that even if the allegations of the appellant are held
to be true, the dispute is of a civil nature and there was no requisite mens
rea for committing an offence under Section 380 IPC. Mr Krishnamani has
submitted that the dispute relating to claim for partition of the immovable
properties held by the husband of the appellant may be a civil dispute but such
dispute has nothing to do with the complaint made by the appellant about
forcibly taking away the moveables belonging to the husband and the appellant
by breaking open the lock of the room in her absence, after the death of the
husband. The learned counsel has submitted that such consideration of the
dispute regarding claim for partition of immovable 630 properties was wholly
extraneous to the consideration of maintainability of the criminal case for the
offences as alleged by the complainant.
9.
The
learned counsel for the respondent, has, however, submitted that the
respondents are respectable persons held in esteem in the society. The said
complaint was made at a belated stage only for the purpose of maligning them
and to create pressure on them for some material gain. He has submitted that
the appellant may seek declaration of her alleged share as an alleged heir of
her husband in respect of the properties left by the husband in a civil court
but institution of a false complaint of forcibly taking away valuable articles
belonging to her and her husband in order to bring disrepute to the
respondents, is an abuse of the process of court and the High Court is
justified in quashing such false criminal case instituted with malice and in
gross abuse of the judicial process. As such criminal proceeding is liable to
be quashed for ends of justice even if some of the findings of the High Court
may be open to criticism, no interference against the judgment is called for by
this Court.
10.
We
are, however, unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the respondents. In our view, Mr Krishnamani is justified in contending that
the question of a civil dispute regarding the claim of share in immovable
property has nothing to do for consideration of the complaint made by the
appellant about forcible removal of moveable articles belonging to the husband
of the appellant.
It appears to us that the learned Magistrate,
merely on the basis of the complaint, did not take cognizance. After examination
of the witnesses and consideration of the evidences, such cognizance has been
taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court has proceeded on
an erroneous assumption that on the basis of old depositions, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and registered the case for the
second time. The learned Magistrate, as a matter of fact, has taken such
cognizance on re-examination of the complainant and her witnesses.
11.
The
submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the complaint is also
liable to be quashed as the same was made at a belated stage and the same has
resulted in the abuse of the process of law should not be accepted. It appears
to us that the appellant previously made complaint against the respondents by
alleging that they forcibly took away valuable articles belonging to her
husband and herself.
When the police submitted a final report, the
appellant has again filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate Xlth Court for initiating criminal case. In the aforesaid facts,
we are not inclined to hold that on the score of lodging complaint at a belated
stage, the complaint is liable to be quashed in limine by treating it stale. We
may indicate here that the application for discharging the respondents on the
ground of delay was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. It is not necessary at
this stage to consider whether the complaint made by the appellant is likely to
be upheld on trial. The learned Magistrate after examining the appellant and
her witnesses has become prima facie satisfied about the complainant's case and
has registered the same for 631 proceeding further in accordance with law. In
the aforesaid facts, it cannot reasonably be contended that the same is an
abuse of the process of law and for ends of justice, such complaint is required
to be quashed. Even, the High Court has not come to such finding.
12.
We,
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to proceed with the criminal
case and conclude the same as expeditiously as practicable.
Back
