CHANDRA PRAKASH LADKANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner-husband Chandra Prakash Lad-kani has filed this petition against his wife, complainant (respondent No. 2) Smt. Vimla Devi Ladkani, praying for quashing proceedings as well as the charge framed against him, in Criminal Case No. 756/96 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this petition may be summarised thus: The respondent No. 2, Smt. Vimla Devi, made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, and Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Padav, Lashkar, Gwalior, on 26-4-1991 regarding subjecting her to cruelty by her husband, the petitioner Chandra Prakash Ladkani. On the basis of such a written complaint Mahila Thana, Padav, registered a case at Crime No. 22/91 under Section 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The period of incidents of cruelty was described between 4-12-77 to 26-4-91. The police recorded statements of the respondent No. 2, Smt. Vimla Devi and her mother Smt. Vidya Devi as well as the statements of some of the neighbours and thereafter on completion of the investigation it filed the final report in the trial Court on 11-11-95; it was mentioned that no case against the petitioner was made out. The learned trial Court gave notice to the respondent, Smt. Vimla Devi, before consideration of the final report. Her statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-96. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded by the learned trial Court and thereafter it took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. only against the petitioner on 15-3-96; the petitioner was thereafter summoned. He appeared before the trial Court and prayed that the proceedings against him be dropped and he be discharged. The learned trial Court rejected his prayer and framed charge on 23-10-97 against him for the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. . Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 17/98 in the Court of Session but it was dismissed on 26-11-98. Now the petitioner has moved this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides at length and have carefully gone through the relevant documents filed by the petitioner. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on two counts; the first argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the period of incidents of cruelty described by the respondent No. 2, Smt. Vimla Devi, swings between 4-12-77 to 26-4-91 and afterwards on 15-3-96 the cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. was taken by the learned Magistrate, and since after the elapse of the period of limitation of three years provided for under Section 468, Cr. P. C. cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court on 15-3-96, hence, it was an abuse of the process of the Court leading to miscarriage of justice; his second vehement argument is that admittedly, there was a litigation in respect of divorce between the petitioner Chandra Prakash and the respondent No. 2, Smt. Vimla Devi, the decree of divorce was passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit (Hindu Marriage Act) No. 578-A/91; appeal was filed by the respondent Smt. Vimla Devi in the High Court and the same (First Appeal No. 67 of 1994) was dismissed by this Court on 31-7-1995. Thereafter, L. P. A. No. 89/95 was filed which was also dismissed by this Court on 21-11-95. The respondent thereafter moved Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 3235/96 which was also dismissed on 9-8-96. Thus, the crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count is that since the parties were no longer husband and wife as the decree of divorce was passed by the Original Court on 6-9-94, hence, the trial Court was wrong in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. against the petitioner who was no longer the husband of the respondent Smt. Vimla Devi. On these counts the learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently assailed the proceedings pending in the trial Court, which, according to him, deserve to be quashed.