VIJAY KUMAR Vs. SARITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this petition is for quashing of the criminal complaint dated 8.11.1994 (Annexure P-4) under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC and summoning order dated 7.12.1996 (Annexure P-5) passed therein.

(2.) THE aforementioned complaint has been filed by the respondent (Sarita Rani) who got married to petitioner No. 1 (Vijay Kumar) on 28.11.1988. It appears that petitioner No. 1 and the respondent could not pull on together, as a result of which respondent filed a criminal complaint under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 406/498-A IPC on 12.7.1989 (Annexure P-1) in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya. From the contents of the aforementioned complaint, it is apparent that apart from allegations regarding harassment and maltreatment for brining insufficient dowry, the respondent also alleged that petitioner No. 1 was having illicit relationship with accused Nos. 2 and 3 arrayed in that complaint. The aforementioned complaint was withdrawn by the respondent on 19.5.1990 (Annexure P-2). It will be apposite to reproduce the statement made on behalf of the respondent and the order passed thereupon by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, on 19.5.1990 which reads as follows :-

(3.) IN support of the allegations contained in the impugned complaint, the respondent led preliminary evidence comprising of her own statement, apart from depositions made by Mohan Singh, Sanjogta Kumari, Avtar Singh, Bhim Singh and one Naresh Chand. On an appreciation of that evidence and having found that the respondent has been able to make out a prima facie case under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC, the petitioners were summoned vide the impugned order dated 7.12.1996 (Annexure P-5). 6. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto reply has been filed. The petitioners have also filed replication to the said reply. 7. In support of the prayer made in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has primarily contended that even as per the allegations made in the impugned complainant, the respondent was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home by petitioner No. 1 "more than three years ago and has been residing with her parents in her parental house", therefore, the impugned complaint is hit by Section 468 Cr.P.C. being barred by limitation. It is contended that since the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the offences under Sections 4096/498-A IPC is three years, a criminal complaint is not maintainable after the expiry of period of three years. In this regard reliance has also been placed upon the averments made in para No. 2 of the written statement wherein it is averred that "she was again turned out of the matrimonial home on 25.5.1990". In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel also relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005(1) Apex Crl. 537 : 2005(2) RCR(Crl.) 68 (SC) : (2005)3 SCC 507. 8. The law in relation to the quashing of criminal proceedings by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled by now. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, which has been recently reiterated by their Lordships in Zhandu Pharmaceutical Works Limited v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another, 2005(1) Apex Crl. 75 : 2004(4) RCR(Crl.) 937 (SC) : (2005)1 SCC 122, High Court, the scope of interference has been narrowed down in the following circumstances :-