SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
NAZMA – Appellants.
VERSUS
JAVED @ ANJUM – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1693…. of 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2575 of 2010]
Decided On : 19-10-2012.
(2001) 1 SCC 169 - Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 439 and 482 - Exercise of powers under by High Court - Practice deprecated being seen as depriving the trial court of its powers - Should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The question of the practice by High Courts of entertaining criminal miscellaneous applications in disposed of criminal writ petition has been raised in this case.
Finding of the Court:
Such practice in fact amounts to review of the decision in criminakl writ petition, which is impermissible.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.-Leave granted.
2. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the legality and propriety of an order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in a disposed of Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition.
3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The marriage of the appellant and 1st respondent took place in the year 1997 according to the Muslim rites and customs and out of that wedlock three children were born. According to the appellant, 1st respondent married again for a third time. During the subsistence of the appellant’s marriage, 1st Respondent kept on harassing the appellant demanding dowry, which resulted in the lodgment of an F.I.R. by the appellant’s brother, being F.I.R. No. 72 of 2003, on 5.8.2003 and a case was registered under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against 1st respondent and his family members. The case was later transferred to the Ladies Police Station, Rakab Ganj, Agra vide an order dated 12.9.2003 of the S.S.P., Agra.
4. Family members of 1st respondent then approached the High Court of Allahabad and filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5426 of 2003 for quashing the F.I.R. In that writ petition, the appellant was not made a party, but only her brother. The family members of 1st respondent had submitted before the High Court that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month would be deposited in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, until the conclusion of the trial and the appellant could withdraw the same. The High Court on 17.9.2003 passed the following order:
“Heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to deposit Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) per month on compassionate ground to be withdrawn by the wife of the petitioner Smt. Nazma. The amount shall be deposited in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned until the conclusion of trial.
In the above said facts and circumstances, since investigation is only with regard to the matter pertaining to the demand of dowry and some ancillary offences under Indian Penal Code, we are inclined to interfere primarily with an intent to settle the dispute between the parties amicably. The arrest of the petitioners in case crime No.227 of 2003, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Achhnera, District Agra, shall not be effected until the conclusion of investigation or submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. with this direction the petition is finally disposed of.” (emphasis added)
The above order is seen passed by the High Court with the intention that the parties would settle their disputes amicably.
5. 1st respondent also filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5877 of 2003 before the High Court of Allahabad seeking identical reliefs. Writ petition was filed without making the appellant or his brother a party. Writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 25.9.2003 stating that 1st respondent should not be arrested until the conclusion of the investigation or submission of any report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“Heard Id. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. A.G.A.
The arrest of other family members has been stayed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5426/2003 (Smt. Amana and others Vs. State of U.P. & others). The said writ petition has been disposed of also with a direction to deposit Rs.2,000/- per month. This petition is on behalf of husband. The offences are under Section 498-A I.P.C. and some other ancillary offence under I.P.C. etc. photo copy of the order passed in the above said writ petition has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is placed on record.
In this view of the matter, the arrest of the petitioner in case Crime No. 227 of 2003, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and S
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.