2009(4) Supreme 144
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Kailashi Bai — Appellant
versus
Aarti Arya & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3277/2008)
Decided on : 27-04-2009
AIR 1960 SC 866; 1992 Supp (1) 335 – Relied upon.
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Powers possessed by the High Court are very wide – The very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise – It should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. (Para 11)
(1992)4 SCC 305; AIR 1964 SC 1; 1990 Supp SCC 686; AIR 1996 SC 309; (1995)6 SCC 194; AIR 1999 SC 1044; (1996)7 SCC 705; (1997)2 SCC 397; AIR 1996 SC 2983; (1999)3 SCC 259; (2002)3 SCC 89 – Relied upon.
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 107 and 306 – Distinction highlighted. (Para 13)
Facts of the case :
1. The present respondent No.1 was married to Mukesh Arya (‘deceased’) in the year 2003.
2. Respondent No.1’s in laws did not approve of the marriage as the respondent No.1 belonged to an upper caste while the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste. A child was born to them.
3. The deceased consumed some poisonous substance and lost his life on 18/3/2007.
4. The High Court noted even at the time of marriage, the parties knew caste of the deceased and the accused and therefore the question of that being a factor for harassing the deceased leading to his suicide cannot be believed. It was also found that there was no material to show that the accused wanted the deceased to stay separately from his parents. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
Finding of the Court :
No interference warranted.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’).
3. Background facts, in nutshell, are as follows:
The present respondent No.1 was married to Mukesh Arya (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in the year 2003. According to the prosecution, the deceased was working as Civil Judge and was posted at the relevant time at Itarsi. Respondent No.1’s in laws did not approve of the marriage as the respondent No.1 belonged to an upper caste while the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste. A child was born to them. The deceased consumed some poisonous substance and lost his life on 18/3/2007.
4. It was the case of the prosecution that during enquiry it surfaced that the respondent No.1 accused used to harass the deceased and subject to mental cruelty as she belonged to higher caste and she did not like association of deceased with his parents and relatives. This was stated to be the ground of suicide and the accused abetted the suicide. Charge sheet was filed in Court of Magistrate. An application under Section 482 of the Code was filed questioning the order passed by learned Magistrate.
5. The High Court took note of the fact that the present appellant’s statement on a fair reading did not disclose any offence. The High Court noted even at the time of marriage, the parties knew caste of the deceased and the accused and therefore the question of that being a factor for harassing the deceased leading to his suicide cannot be believed. It was also found that there was no material to show that the accused wanted the deceased to stay separately from his parents. Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
6. It was held that ingredients of Section 306 were not established. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parameters of exercise of power under Sec.482 of the Code was not kept in mind by the High Court. In any event, it was not a matter which was to be dealt with in trial. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the judgment.
7. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise 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 provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.That is the doctrine 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 necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of 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 under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal 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 exe
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma
State of Kerala v. O. C. Kuttan
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.