Priya Vrat Singh & Ors. v. Shyam Ji Sahai
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing
the application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Crimi- F
> nal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C'). Appellants have
filed the petition for quashing criminal proceeding against them
in Complaint Case No. 896 of 1994 subsequently numbered
as Criminal Case No. 931 of 1995 relating to alleged commis
sion of offences punishable under Sections 494, 1208 and 109 G
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sec
tions 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the 'Dowry
Act') pending in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi. The prayer was rejected by the High Court being of
the view that the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial H
A expeditiously and at the time of framing charges, the appellants
can raise such points as has been raised in the present dis
pute. Liberty was also granted to appear within one month from
the date of order before the trial court and to obtain bail.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:
Daughter of the respondent namely Madhulika Singh was
married to appellant No.1 Priya Vrat Singh. According to the
appellants, Madhulika started behaving rudely with her husband
and his family members as Priya Vrat was unemployed. Ten-
C sion between two reached to such an extent that Madhulika tried
to commit suicide on 7 .3.1992. She thereafter started giving
repeated threats to commit suicide and appellant was seriously
harassed. From 16. 7.1992 onwards appellant No.1 and
Madhulika started living separately in the same house. How-
D ever, shortly thereafter Madhulika left her matrimonial house and
started living in the parental house. In the meantime, appellant
No.1 filed a suit in Original Suit No. 188 of 1992 in the Civil ·
Court at Barabanki for dissolution of marriage between him and
Madhulika on the ground of cruelty and harassment meted out
to him by Madhulika. The said suit was decreed on 1.1.1993
E ex parte in favour of appellant No.1. Time for filing appeal against
the ex-parte decree dated 1.1.1993 under Section 28(4) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (in short the 'Marriage Act') expired
on 31.1.1993. On 21.2.1993 after dissolution of marriage, ap
pellant No.1 re-married one Neha alias Sunita at Jalgaon in
F Maharashtra on 2.3.1993. On 6.12.1994 respondent filed a
private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi
wherein all the appellants were arrayed as accused persons. It
was alleged that in 21.2.1993 appellant No.1 had re married in
Sankat Machan Mandir, Varanasi. Allegations of dowry harass-
G ment were also made. It was submitted that the marriage at
tracted punishment under Sections 494, 1208 and 109 IPC and
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act. On 1.6.1995 learned Special
CJM, Varanasi issued summons. Long thereafter, on 9.7.1996
Madhulika filed a Restoration Petition before the Civil Judge
H for recalling the order of ex parte. On 9.8.1996, appellants moved
y
).
PRIYA VRAT SINGH & ORS. v. SHYAM JI SAHAI 901
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
an application before the learned Special CJM, Varanasi, and A
protested to the summoning order. However, the same was
rejected by order dated 9.8.1996. On 24.9.1996 petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed which was numbered as Crimi-
nal Misc. Case No. 4501 of 1996. On 2.3.1997 the restoration
petition was allowed. On 25.10.2001 the High Court dismissed B
the Criminal Misc. Case.
4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel
lant submitted that the marriage of appellant No. 1 with appel
lant No. 3 is protected under Section 15 of the Marriage Act
and therefore, the proceedings under Section 494 IPC are C
clearly not maintainable. Further it is pointed out that the alle
gation of alleged demand for dowry was made for the first time
in December, 1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is that
the dowry torture was made some times in 1992. It has not been
explained as to why for more than two years no action was taken. D
Further it appears that in the Complaint Petition apart from the
husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently married
wife, husband's mother's sister, husba:id's brother in law and
Sunita's father were impleaded as party. No role has been spe
cifically ascribed to anybody except the husband and that too of E
a dowry demand in February, 1993 when the complaint was
filed on 6.12.1994 i.e. nearly after 22 months. It is to be noted
that in spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf
of respondent No.1.
5. The parameters for exercise of power under Section F
482 have been laid down by this Court in several cases.
6. The Section does not confer any new power on the High
Court. It only saves th.e inherent power which the Court pos
sessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three G
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be ex
ercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code,
(ii) to prevent abus.e of the process of court, and (iii) to other
wise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desir
able to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exer- H
A cise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing
with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise.
Courts·, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express pro
visions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of func
tions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine
B which.finds expression in the section which merely recognizes
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts,
whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express
provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as
are riecessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of
C administration of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid
alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse
non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him
that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers un
der the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal
D or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide
has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and
only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid
down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae
to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement
E of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so
as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It
would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.
In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any
F proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to
abuse of the process of court qr quashing of these proceed
ings would otherwise serve the ends of justice.
7. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High
G Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the
very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exer
cise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise
of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power
should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, The
High Court being the highest court of a State should normally
PRIYA VRAT SINGH & ORS. v. SHYAM JI SAHAI 903
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the A
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evi
dence has not been collected and produced before the Court
and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magni
tude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without suffi
cient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down B
in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its ex
traordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.
(See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305),
Raghubir Saran (Or.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1) and
Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (2006 (4) SCC 359). C
8. The present case appears to be one where the cat
egory 7 of the illustrations given in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal (1952 (supp.) 1 SCC 335) is clearly applicable.
9. That being so the appeal deseNes to be allowed, which 0 we direct. The proceedings in Case No.896 of 1994 pending
~ before the Special CJM, Varanasi stand quashed.
10. Appeal is allowed.
N.J. Appeal allowed.