Sushma Rani and ors. Vs. Veena Rani

Sushma Rani and ors. vs Veena Rani

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 21, 1991

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/616959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/616959
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: A.P. Chowdhri, J.
Decided On: Feb 21, 1991
Case Number: Crl. Misc Nos. 13083-M and 14031 of 1990
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397(3) and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 406 and 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 4 and 6

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sushma Rani and ors.

Advocate V.G. Dogra, Adv.

Respondent

Veena Rani

Advocate Sarwan Gupta, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397(3) and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 406 and 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 4 and 6
Reported In: II(1991)DMC204

Excerpt

.....or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - ..........in view of dismissal of the revision petition by the learned additional sessions judge, the present petition does not lie by describing the same as a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. according to the learned counsel, in fact the present petition is nothing but a second revision petition which is expressly barred under section 397(3) cr.p.c.4. the law with regard to bar provided under section 397(3) of the code of criminal procedure is fairly well settled. a division bench of this court in charanjit singh and others v. smt. gursharan kaur 1990 cri.l.j 1264 after reviewing the case law concluded the legal position, thus: 'the legal position that thus emerges is that the provisions of section 397 of the code do not constitute or operate as a bar to the exercise by the high court of its inherent power under section 482 of the code. the limitation here, as observed in raj kapoor's case (1980 cri.l.j. 202)(sc) (supra) is self-restraint and no more. it must of course, be observed that where an order is amenable to revision the order of the revisional court should be interfered with very sparingly and that too only for the purposes as invisaged by section 482 of the code. such cases would clearly be few and far between.' 5. though technically a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure is not barred but for all practical purposes, it is only in rarest of rare cases properly made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction that powers under section 482 of 'the code of criminal procedure are exercised by the high court. on a consideration of facts and circumstances of the present case, i .do no think that any such case has been made out. the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show by any clinching material that the parents of the boy in question had been living separately from-him or had not taken part in his marriage. the prima facie averments made in the complaint have to be assumed to be true. the.....

Full Judgment

A.P. Chowdhri, J.

1. Veena Rani was married to Rajinder Kumar on 21.7.1980. Parties appear to have fallen out with each other. According to the wife, the cause of dispute was insatiable demand of dowry by husband and other relations of the husband from the wife and on her failure to comply with their wishes, infliction of great cruelty on her. They even tried to burn her. She filed a complaint after all efforts for reconciliation had failed. The complaint was under Sections 406 and 498A, Indian Penal Code and 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Five witnesses were examined in preliminary evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sangrur summoned the husband and his father for an offence under Section 406 and all the accused i.e. husband, father, mother, brother and sister of the husband under Section 498A,Indian Penal Code. The summoned accused filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 6.9.1990. The sister and both the parents of the husband have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and the summoning order.

2. The main contention Mr. V.G. Dogra, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the parents of Rajinder Kumar had been living separately and Sushma Rani sister of the husband had been married and was living in Delhi and they had been roped in order to harass the husband against whom Veena Rani is feeling sore. This, according to the learned counsel, is an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, the inherent powers of this Court should be invoked to prevent failure of justice.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a preliminary objection. He contended that in view of dismissal of the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition does not lie by describing the same as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel, in fact the present petition is nothing but a second revision petition which is expressly barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

4. The law with regard to bar provided under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fairly well settled. A Division Bench of this Court in Charanjit Singh and others v. Smt. Gursharan Kaur 1990 Cri.L.J 1264 after reviewing the case law concluded the legal position, thus:

'The legal position that thus emerges is that the provisions of Section 397 of the Code do not constitute or operate as a bar to the exercise by the High Court of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. The limitation here, as observed in Raj Kapoor's case (1980 Cri.L.J. 202)(SC) (supra) is self-restraint and no more. It must of course, be observed that where an order is amenable to revision the order of the revisional Court should be interfered with very sparingly and that too only for the purposes as invisaged by Section 482 of the Code. Such cases would clearly be few and far between.'

5. Though technically a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred but for all practical purposes, it is only in rarest of rare cases properly made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction that powers under Section 482 of 'the Code of Criminal Procedure are exercised by the High Court. On a consideration of facts and circumstances of the present case, I .do no think that any such case has been made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show by any clinching material that the parents of the boy in question had been living separately from-him or had not taken part in his marriage. The prima facie averments made in the complaint have to be assumed to be true. The remaining pleas are open to the accused and can be taken at an appropriate stage in the trial There is no case for quashing the first information report. The petition is dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 11.3.1991 for further proceedings according to law.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1991 Same Parties Sushma Rani and ors. vs Veena Rani Same Subject Criminal Same Judge A.P. Chowdhri, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 397(3) an...

Criminal