2007 Supreme(SC) 166

2007(2) Supreme 45
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
N. Suriyakala—Appellant
versus
A. Mohandoss & Ors.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2481 of 2006)
Decided on 12-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Yogesh Kanna and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocates.
For the Respondents : E.C. Agrawala, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and Prabu Rama Subramanian, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all as the Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country is meant to deal with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice had been done.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 136—Appeal by special leave—Scope—Discretion vested in Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases—Limitations imposed by the Court upon its own powers—This power has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only.

       Held : Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its discretion.(Para 7)

       The use of the words “in its discretion” in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases.(Para 9)

       Though the discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 is apparently not subject to any limitation, the Court has itself imposed certain limitations upon its own powers.(Para 10)

       Nowadays it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realizing the scope of Article 136. Hence we feel it incumbent on us to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section 100 CPC. Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice had been done. If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not be able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute.(Para 11)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 498A, 406—Constitution of India—Article 136—Appeal against quashing of prosecution u/s 498A, 406 IPC—Maintainability—Appellant wife and respondent husband got married on 14.11.1996 but the marriage did not work out—Criminal case instituted by wife against her husband and his relatives u/ss 498A and 406 IPC r/ws 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act—Wife has also filed a maintenance case against her husband—High Court quashed criminal prosecution—Whether appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court is maintainable—(No)—This is not a fit case to be entertained in exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution.

       Held : In the present case we are of the opinion that this is not fit case to be entertained in exercise of our discretion under Article 136. The appellant has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. What can she possibly get by prosecuting him as well as his family members? The appellant filed the criminal case under Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband’s father, mother, brother, sister, etc. In exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal case filed by the appellant. After all, the appellant will not get any benefit by sending her husband or his family members to jail. She is pursuing her maintenance case, and if she is so advised she can also file a suit for damages, which if filed will be decided on its own merits.(Para 12)

       (iii) Constitution of India—Article 136—Appeal—Delay of 888 days in filing special leave petition—Explanation given in the delay condonation application not satisfactory—Whether appeal filed is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay alone.(Para 3)