SUBHASH JOSHI Vs. ANITA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary powers of this Court to quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 949/04 (Anita vs. Subhash and others) pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal together with charge framed on 3.11.06.

(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY, petitioner no.1 Subhash is the husband of Smt. Anita Joshi. Petitioner no.2 is dead, he was father-in law of Smt. Anita, petitioner no.3 Smt. Kashi Bai is mother-in-law of Smt. Anita. Marriage of Anita took place in the year 1986 at Bhopal. Unfortunately, difference arose within three months of marriage and Anita lodged complaint on 23rd March,1987 at Jabalpur. On her report Omti police filed charge sheet against the petitioners before CJM,Jabalpur, and on 22.2.89, CJM discharged the petitioners from offence under Section 406 IPC. Against the order of discharge a petition was filed in this Court which stood dismissed on 5.7.1990. This order becomes final and still on 23.11.97 Smt. Anita filed a criminal complaint for offence under Section 406 IPC which was not only registered by CJM, Bhopal, but charge has also been framed so this petition has been filed to quash the proceeding as it is not only time barred, but once it has been decided and matter was settled, then petitioners cannot be tried again for the same offence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC 397 in which it was held that "Stridhana" is absolute property of the wife and it cannot be joint property of the wife with the husband. It has also been held for the purpose of Section 468 and 472 that as per averment in complaint that the complainant demanded from the accused return of her stridhana properties on 5.12.87, complaint filed on 10.9.90 was held not to be time barred. It has been further observed by the Apex Court that power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings at initial stage should be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent miscarriage of justice or when it would tantamount to abuse of process of Court.