http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MRS. DHANALAKSHMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R. PRASANNA KUMAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/11/1989

BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (CJ) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR  494            1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 165  1990 SCC  Supl.  686     JT 1989 (4)   318  1989 SCALE  (2)1128

ACT:     Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1973:  S.  482--Proceedings instituted  on complaint--Quashing of--Jurisdiction of  High Court--No  meticulous analysis of case  necessary--Complaint to be read as a whole.

HEADNOTE:     The  criminal complaint instituted by the appellant  was taken cognizance of by the Magistrate for offences under ss. 494,  496,498-A,  112, 114, 120, 120-B and 34  IPC.  It  was alleged  that  the first respondent had married  the  second respondent while the proceedings for decree of divorce  were still pending, and that the marriage was performed  secretly in  the presence of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The High  Court, however, on the application of the first respondent  quashed the proceedings before the Magistrate. Allowing the appeal by special leave,     HELD:  The  High  Court was in error  in  assessing  the material before it and concluding that the complaint  cannot be proceeded with. [167C-D]     In  proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of  the inherent  power under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal  Proce- dure  by the High Court to quash the proceedings  is  called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose  any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It is  not necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of  the case,  before the trial to find out whether the  case  would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as  a whole. [166G; 167A]     In the instant case, there were specific allegations  in the  complaint  disclosing the ingredients  of  the  offence taken cognizance of. It was for the complainant to  substan- tiate  the allegations by evidence at a later stage. In  the absence  of circumstances to hold prima facie that the  com- plaint was frivolous there was no jurisdiction for the  High Court to interfere. [167D-E] Sharda  Prasad  Sinha v. State of Bihar, [1977] 2  SCR  357; Trilok 166 Singh  &  Ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979  SC  850  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala JUDGMENT:

&     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 672 of 1989.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  16.2.1988  of  the Madras High Court in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 12389 of 1987. R. Mohan and R.A. Perumal for the Appellant.     R.K. Jain, Mrs. Aruna Mathur and A. Mariarputham for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Special Leave granted.     The  appellant  married the first  respondent  on  29.4. 1979. They lived together until 1982 and have two  children. They  separated and the legal battle commenced in 1983.  The first respondent moved the City Civil Court for divorce. The appellant instituted criminal complaint in the court of  the Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint was taken  cognizance of  for offences under Sections 494, 496, 498-A,  112,  114, 120,  120-B and 34 IPC against the respondents. It  was  al- leged that the first respondent married the second  respond- ent  while the proceedings for decree of divorce were  still pending, the marriage was performed secretly in the presence of  respondent Nos. 3 to 6. On the application of the  first respondent the High Court by the impugned order quashed  the proceedings  before the Metropolitan Magistrate.  Hence  the appeal.     Section  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  empowers the  High Court to exercise its inherent powers  to  prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted  on complaint  exercise of the inherent power to quash the  pro- ceedings  is  called for only in cases where  the  complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious  or oppressive.  If the allegations set out in the complaint  do not  constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken  by the  Magistrate  it is open to the High Court to  quash  the same  in exercise of the inherent powers under Section  482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticu- lous analysis of the case, before the trial to find 167 out  whether  the case would end in conviction or  not.  The complaint  has  to be read as a whole. If it  appears  on  a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the state- ment  on  oath of the complainant that  ingredients  of  the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material  to show  that  the complaint is mala fide, frivolous  or  vexa- tious.  in  that event there would be no  justification  for interference by the High Court.     The High Court without proper application of the princi- ples that have been laid down by this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, [1977] 2 SCR 357; Trilok Singh  and Others  v.  Satya Deo Tripathi, [1980] 86 CRL.  LJ  882--AIR 1979 SC 850 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v.  Purshotam Dass  Jhunjunwala and Others, [1983] 1 SCR 895 proceeded  to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all  the probabilities  in  order to determine whether  a  conviction would  be  sustainable  and on such premises  arrived  at  a conclusion  that the proceedings are to be  quashed  against all the respondents. The High Court was clearly in error  in assessing  the  material before it and concluding  that  the complaint  cannot be proceeded with. We find there are  spe- cific  allegations in the complaint disclosing the  ingredi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

ents  of  the  offence taken cognizance of. It  is  for  the complainant to substantiate the allegations by evidence at a later  stage. In the absence of circumstances to hold  prima facie  that  the complaint is frivolous when  the  complaint does  disclose  the  commission of an offence  there  is  no justification for the High Court to interfere.     We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the  impugned order and direct that the proceedings before the  Magistrate shall  be  restored and disposed of in accordance  with  the law. P.S.S.                                 Appeal allowed. 168