2008 Supreme(SC) 130

2008(1) Supreme 513
Supreme Court of india
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
C.K. Thakker & D.K. Jain, JJ.
Sunita Jain — Petitioner
versus
Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 174 of 2008
Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1362 of 2004
Decided on : 25-01-2008

important point
When the farming of charges was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was not open to the High Court to quash the proceedings by invoking inherent powers u/s 482.

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482 and 320 – It is true that even where an order cannot be challenged in revision, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court in appropriate cases and Section 320 of the Code relating to ‘compounding of offences’ would not limit the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code – It is also true that marriage is a sacred ceremony and dispute between the parties should be settled amicably by pondering over differences and misunderstandings, and there is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier – Even then, when framing of charges was approved by the Supreme Court, the High Court could not, subsequently, quash the proceedings. (Paras 14 and 16 to 18)

       (1977) 4 SCC 551; (2000) 3 SCC 693; (2003) 4 SCC 675 – Referred.

       (b)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 362 – In quashing the proceedings after affirming the framing of charges the High Court, in substance and in reality, exercised power of review not conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court – Section 362 does not empower a Criminal Court to alter its judgment or final order after it is signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical error. (Paras 20 and 21)

       (c)Judicial Review – Well settled that power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred on a Court by a specific or express provision to that effect – No power of review has been conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court and it cannot review an order passed or judgment pronounced. (Paras 23 and 24)

       (1971) 3 SCC 844; (2001) 1 SCC 169 – Relied upon.

       (d)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Well-settled that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised in rarest of rare cases – Principles for exercising power u/s 482 reiterated. (Paras 30 and 31)

       (1960) 3 SCR 388; (1992) Supp 1 SCC 355 – Relied upon.

       (e)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – When the farming of charges against the respondents was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it was not open to the High Court to quash the proceedings by invoking inherent powers u/s 482. (Paras 27, 29 and 33)

       Facts of the case:

       1.The appellant herein is the wife of Pawan Kumar Jain-respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of respondent No.1 and father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the appellant.

       2.The appellant was married to respondent No.1 on July 8, 1989. After the marriage, she remained with her husband for few days at Jabalpur and during that period, her husband and in-laws harassed her as her father had not given sufficient amount of dowry.

       3.On September 5, 1990, the appellant gave birth to twins.

       4.The appellant lodged a complaint in Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur on May 10, 1998. Respondent No.1 was called at the Police Station and he executed a writing that he would not ill treat the appellant. The 1st respondent also gave assurance that he will not use any writing against the appellant said to have been signed by her.

       5.On March 8, 1996, the 1st respondent sent a notice through advocate to father of the appellant stating that he had filed a divorce petition. He further stated that he was ready to pay maintenance to the appellant.

       6.On March 20, 1996, the appellant lodged FIR in Women Police Station giving details about physical and mental torture and dowry demands by respondent No.1 and his family members.

       7.On July 10, 1996, non-bailable warrants were issued. In the High Court, however, the 1st respondent made a statement through his advocate that parties had decided to live together and had settled the dispute amicably. On that statement being made, bail was granted to respondent No.1 and his parents.

       8.On January 30, 1997, charges were framed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also against brother and sister of respondent No.1.

       9.All the accused challenged the action of framing of charge against them in the High Court by filing a Revision Petition. The High Court vide its order dated October 22, 1997, partly allowed the revision and quashed charges against brother and sister of respondent No.1.

       10.The High Court, however, held that so far as other respondents were concerned, charges could not be quashed and dismissed the petition.

       11.The respondents then once again filed a petition in the High Court by invoking Section 482 of the Code on February 23, 1999. The High Court vide the impugned order, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

       Findings of the Court:

       When the farming of charges against the respondents was affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, it was not open to the High Court to quash the proceedings by invoking inherent powers u/s 482.

       Result : Impugned order set aside.