MEENA GUPTA Vs. JAIPRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -complainant has challenged non -framing of charges under Ss. 406 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and 3 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Act for short) against respondents No. 1 to 7 of MCrC. No. 1993/02 and under S. 498 -A, 120 -B, 406 of the Code and under S. 3 and 4 of the Act against Smt. Nirmala Jadon (R -2) in M.Cr.C.No. 1995/02 by JMFC Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13/2000 (State v. Jai Prakash Gupta and 8 others).

(2.) THE petitioner -complainant has challenged non framing of charges under Ss. 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and 3 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Act for short) against respondents No. 1 to 7 of MCrC No. 1993/02 and under S. 498A, 120B, 406 of the Code and under S. 3 and 4 of the Act against Smt. Nirmala Jadon (R -2) in M.Cr.C. No. 1995/02 by JMFC Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13/2000 (State v. Jai Prakash Gupta and 8 others).

(3.) IN Jitendra Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi (1999 SCC (Cri.) 77) the Hon. Apex Court has directed that petition under S. 482 of the Code filed after dismissal of revision should not be dismissed by the High Court merely on the ground that the same amounts to a second revision petition. Anyway, inherent power of the High Court are still available under S. 482, though of course such powers have to be exercised sparingly so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. Such power has to be exercised ex -debito justitiae to avoid abuse of process of Court. Definitely a prima facie case under S. 406 of the Code and S. 3/4 of the Act was made out against respondents No. 1 to 7 in MCrC 1993/02.