M. SARAVANA PORSELVIversusA.R. CHANDRASHEKAR @ PARTHIBAN & ORS.

                          [2008] 9 S.C.R. 937


                       M. SARAVANA PORSELVI                        A
                                  V.
        A.R. CHANDRASHEKAR @ PARTHIBAN & ORS.
               (Criminal Appeal No.967 of 2008)
                            MAY 27, 2008
                                                                   B
        [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA]
                   I
                   I

         Code of eriminal Procedure, 1973:
           ss.482 and 468 - Customary divorce - Agreement for,
    registered - Permanent alimony to wife - Ten years thereat- . C
    ter, wife filed complaint petition against husband and parents-
    in-law before the Women Cell on the ground that the husband
    had married for the second time - FiR lodged - Husband and
    parents-in-law filed application for quashing of the FIR - High
    Court, in exercise of jurisdiction uls.482 CrPC, allowed the D
    application - Justification of - Held: Justified - Since parties
    living separately for more than ten years, case under s.498A
    /PC not made out at such a distant point of time, particularly
    in view of the bar-of limitation as contained in s.468 CrPC -
    Even otherwise, on facts, it is unbelievable that the wife was E
    really harassed by her husband or in-laws- Though there does
    not exist any period of limitation in respect of offence under
    s. 494, but no a/legation was made out in regard to commis-
    sion of said offence so far as the parents-in-law are concerned
    - If it is a case of customary divorce, question in regard to F
    existence of good custom may have to be gone into, in a civil
    proceeding - But criminal prosecution shall not lie - It was
    initiated ma/a fide - If allowed to continue, same shall be abuse
    of the process of Court - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and
    494- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- s.13(1)(a) -Abuse of Court. G

•         The parties entered into an agreement for divorce
    in 1996 which was registered in the office of the Joint Sub-
    Registrar. The said divorce purportedly took place in
    terms of the custom prevailing in the community to which
                                  937                              H
    938      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 9 S.C.R.


A the parties belong. Appellant-wife also received a sum of
  Rs.25,000/- towards permanent alimony which was ac-
  knowledged by granting a stamped receipt therefor. Re-
  spondent No.1 married again in 1998.
       In 2006, Appellant filed a complaint petition against
8 Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e., her husband and par-
  ents-in-law before the Women Cell, inter alia, on the
  premise that Respondent No.1 had married for the sec-
  ond time which fact she came to learn on receipt of sum-
  mons in respect of a petition filed by Respondent No.1
C under s.13(1 )(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A First
  Information Report (FIR) was lodged pursuant to the said
  complaint. Respondents were thereafter arrested. An ap-
  plication for qu?.shing the said FIR was filed before the
  High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the
D said application has been allowed.
       Appellant submitted before this Court, that in a case
  of this nature, wh~re investigation into the allegations
  made in the complaint has been going on, the High Court
  should not have passed the impugned judgment, upon
E entering into the purported defence raised by the Respon·
  dents, particularly when the State itself, in its counter affi-
  davit filed before the High Court, categorically stated that
  a prima facie case had been made out for investigation.
F         Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, however, submitted that
    ma/a fide on the part of Appellant was evident in view of
    the fact that the complaint petition was filed 10 years af·
    ter the divorce and that such complaint petition should
    be considered to be an abuse of the process of the Court.
G        The question which arose for consideration before
    this Court is as to whether the High Court, in a case of
    this nature, could exercise its jurisdiction under s.482,
    CrPC.
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
H
              M. SARAVANA PORSELVI v. A.R CHANDRASHEKAR 939
                             @PARTHIBAN

               HELD: 1. The customary divorce may be legal or ille- A
          gal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered
          into or the Appellant had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by
          way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The
          document is a registered one. Appellant being in the le-
          gal profession must be held to be aware of the legal im- B
_,        plication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are
          taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been liv-
          ing separately for more than ten years. How then a case
          under s.498A of IPC can be said to have been made out
          and that too at such a distant point of time is the ques- c
          tion, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as con-
          tained in s.468 of CrPC. Even otherwise it is unbeliev-
          able that the Appellant was really harassed by her hus-
          band or her in-laws. [Para 10] [941-G,H, 942-A,B]
                2. Though there does not exist any period of limita- 0
          tion in respect of an offence under s.494, as the maximum
          period of punishment which can be imposed therefor is
          seven years, but no allegation has been made out in the
          present case in regard to commission of the said offence
          so far as the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned. If, E
          even for exercising its jurisdiction under s.482 of CrPC,
          the High Court has taken into consideration an admitted
          document, there is no legal infirmity therein. If it is a case
          of customary divorce, the question in regard to the exist-
     ..   ence of good custom may have to be gone into in a civil F
          proceeding. But a criminal prosecution shall not lie. It
          was initiated mala fide. Thus, if it is allowed to continue,
          the same shall be an abuse of the process of Court. [Para
          12] [942-C-F]
               CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal           G
          No. 967 of 2008
               From the final Order dated 27.10.2006 of the High Court
          of Madras Bench at Madurai in Crl. O.P. No. 5392 of 2006
               Gurukrishna Kumar, Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar and T.       H
    940       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 9 S.C.R.


A   Senthil Kumar for the Appellant.

          V. Karoagaraj, R Shnmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan,
    VG. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Praburama Subramanian for
    the Respondents.

B         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                       )
          S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. Appellant is an advocate. She was married to Respon-
    dent No.1 on or about 1.12.1993.
c       The parties indisputably are living separately since 1996.
  She allegedly filed a complaint before the All Women Police
  Station at Virudhunagar. An enquiry was directed to be con-
  ducted. As per the advice of the officers of the said Police
  Station as also the relatives of the parties, they entered into an
D agreement for divorce on or about 24.7.1996. It was regis-
  tered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Virudhunagar be-
  ing Registration No.146 of 1996. Appellant also received a
  sum of Rs.25,000/- towards permanent alimony which was ac-
  knowledged by granting a stamped receipt therefor. The said
E purported divorce is said to have taken place in terms of the
  custom prevailing in the community the which the parties be-
  long.

        3. Admittedly, the first respondent married again in 1998.
    He has two children out of the said wedlock.
F
        4. Appellant, however, filed a complaint petition against
  the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, i.e., her husband and
  parents-in-law in May, 2006 before the Women Cell at Chennai,
  inter alia, on the premise that the first respondent has married
G for the second time which fact she came to learn on receipt of a
  summons in respect of a petition filed by the first respondent
  under Section 13(1 )(a} of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
        5. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged pursuant to
  the said complaint which was registered as Crime No.5 of 2006.
H Respondents were arrested.
             M. SARAVANA PORSELVI v. A.R..CHANDRASHEKAR 941
                      @ PARTHIBAN [S.B. SINHA, .J.]
    •           An application for quashing the said FIR was filed be-     A
        fore the High.Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the
        said application has been allowed.
               6. Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
        behalf of the appellant, WOl;Jld submit that in a case of this na-
        ture, where investigation into the allegations made in the com- B
-I
        plaint has been going on, the High Court should not have passed
        the impugned judgment, upon entering into the purported de-
        fence raised by the respondents, particularly when the State
        itself, in its counter affidavit filed before the High Court, cat-
        egorically stated that a prima facie case.had been made out        c
        for investigation.
              7. Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel
        appearing for the State, however, would submit that the High
        Court cannot be said to have committed an error as the deed
                                                                            D
        of divorce dated 24.7.1996 was a registered document and,
'       thus, a public document. If, therefore, execution of the said docu-
        ment has not been denied, the impugned judgment should not
        be interfered with.
              8. Mr. V. Kanakraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing on E
        behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, would submit that the
        mala fide on the part of the appellant is evident in view of the
        fact that such a complaint petition has been filed after a period
        of 10 years . The learned counsel contended that as the di-
.       vorce had taken place 10 years back, it is futile to urge that the F
        complaint petition filed after such a long time, should not be
        considered to be an abuse of the process of the Court.
             9. The core question herein is as to whether the High Court,
        in a case of this nature, could exercise its jurisdiction under
        Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.                    G
>            10. The factual backdrop of the matter is not in dispute.
              The customary divorce may be legal or illegal. The fact
        that such an agreement had been entered into or the appellant
        had received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of permanent ali-         H
    942       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 9 S.C.R


A mony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered
  one. Appellant being in the legal profession must be held to be
  aware of the legal implication thereof. If the contents of the said
  agreement are taken to be correct. indisputably the parties had
  been living separately for more than ten years. How then a case
B under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code can be said to
  have made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the
  question. particularly in view of the bar of limitation as contained
  in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even other-
  wise it is unbelievable that the appellant was really harassed by
c her husband or her in-laws.                                                   •
          11. We are not oblivious of the fact that there does not
    exist any period of limitation in respect of an offence under Sec-
    tion 494, as the maximum period of punishment which can be
    imposed therefor is seven years.
D
        12. But no allegation has been made out in regard to com-
  mission of the said offence so far as the respondent Nos. 2 and
  3 are concerned. If even for exercising its jurisdiction under Sec-
  tion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court has
  taken into consideration an admitted document, we do not see
E any legal infirmity therein. If it is a case of customary divorce,
  the question in regard t.o the existence of good custom may
  have to be gone into in a civil proceeding. But a criminal pros-
  ecution shall not lie. It was initiated mala fide. Thus, it is allowed
  to continue, the same shall be an abuse of the process of court.         •-
F
        13. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no legal in-
  firmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed ac-
  cordingly.
    B.B.B.                                        Appeal dismissed.