Back
1999(5) Supreme 370
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
K.T. Thomas & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Mary Angel & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Tamil Nadu -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 1999
(@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 1999)
Decided on 13.5.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S. Sivasubramaniam, Sr. Advocate, R. Ayyam Perumal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 : V.G. Pragasam, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : K.S. Gnanasambandan, and M.A. Chinnasamy, Advocates.
Held : While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Court has power to pass such orders (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As stated above, this extraordinary power is to be used in extraordinary circumstances and in a judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes. (Para 21)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Leave granted.
The question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to impose "exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/-" to be paid by each of the appellants while rejecting a frivolous or vexatious petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the charge framed against the appellant?
2. FIR was lodged by Josephine Jaya on 29th September, 1989 stating that her in-laws demanded from her father Rs. 60,000/- in cash, 65 sovereigns of gold jewellery for the bride and nine sovereigns or similar jewellery for the groom; that out of 60,000/- Rs. 50,000/- were paid; that after the marriage, she was treated cruelly and there were unlawful demands for a colour television and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. It is also alleged that at the instigation of in-laws accused Nos. 2 to 6, accused No. 1 (her husband) administered certain medicine with a view to abort her pregnancy. After preliminary investigation, on 18th October, 1989, a charge sheet was filed against A1 to A6 under Sections 498(A), 406, 420, 315 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Nagercoil and was numbered as Sessions Case No. 10 of 1989. Accused Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for their discharge. That application was allowed by holding that they had not demanded dowry and there is no material to show that medicine for abortion was administered at their instigation. Against that order, complainant filed Criminal R.C. No. 442 of 1990 before the High Court of Madras. By Order dated 9th July, 1993, the High Court allowed the Revision case filed by the complainant and set aside the order of discharge. In pursuance of the said Order, on 13th June, 1996, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Nos. A3 to A6 also.
3. Against that Order dated 13th June, 1996, accused Nos. 3 to 6, that is, the present appellants preferred Criminal Revision Case No. 601 of 1996 before the High Court on the ground that there was no prima facie case for framing of charges against them. The Court while dismissing the same observed that the proceedings have been dragged on for 8 years and that petition was filed without disclosing even to the learned counsel that revision against the order of non-framing of charges was allowed earlier by the High Court by holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges. The Court also observed that despite the direction of the High Court to the Sessions Court to finish the trial as expeditiously as possible, appellants have not allowed the Sessions Court to comply with the said directions of the High Court. Considering the aforesaid conduct, the High Court imposed costs of Rs.10,000/- each on the appellants to be paid to the informant (complainant), wife of accused No. 1 and directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case within two months from the date of the communication of the Order. That Order is challenged before us in this appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in criminal cases High Court has no jurisdiction to impose costs except as provided under Sections 148(3), 342 & 359 of the Cr.P.C. empowering the Court to impose costs and submitted that inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised contrary to the said provisions. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to impose costs to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is submitted that for one or other reason, the accused prevented the Sessions Court from proceeding with the case and by suppressing the previous Order passed by the High Court, approached the Court for quashing and setting aside the charges framed against them. It is, therefore, submitted that the High Court has rightly exercised
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
