Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MRS. DHANALAKSHMI versus R. PRASANNA KUMAR AND ORS.

Decided
15 November 1989
Judges listed
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 165 · 1989 INSC 345
Also cited as
  • (1990) Supp SCC 686 (51 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1990 SC 494 (48 citing judgments)
  • (1991) SCC(CRI) 142 (18 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
3 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 15 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

M. FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Special Leave granted.

p. 166, margin C

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 re~pondent 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 !PC against the respondents. It was al)eged that the first respondent married the second respondent 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.

p. 166, margin D

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 proceedings 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 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. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement 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 vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

pp. 166–167, margin F

The High Court .without proper application of the principles 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] l SCR 895 proceeded to analyse the case of the complamant 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 specific allegations in the complaint disclosing the ingredients 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.

p. 167, margin B

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.

p. 167, margin E