# Dr. Ravendra Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-15
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1213 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-ravendra-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47541
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

(A) Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, S. 498-A -
Cruelty - Criminal Procedure Code, S. 468,
S. 472, S. 473 - Cognizance - cognizance
of offence u/s 498-A, may be taken even
after the limitation period i.e. even after
three years, if court is satisfied that the
delay has been properly explained or that
it is necessary so to do in the interests of
justice

(B) Indian Penal Code, S. 498-A - Cruelty
- Maximum Punishment is of three years -
Code of Criminal Procedure - S. 468,
Period of limitation to take cognizance -
Period of limitation is three years -
Continuing Offence - As per S. 472 CrPC,
in case of a continuing offence, a fresh
period of limitation begin to run at every
moment of the time during which the
offence continues - Extension of period of
limitation - S. 473 CrPC provides that any
Court may take cognizance of an offence
after the expiry of the period of limitation,
if it is satisfied on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case that the delay
has been properly explained or that it is
necessary so to do in the interests of
justice - Held - Cruelty is a continuing
offence - on each occasion on which wife
is subjected to cruelty she would have a
new starting point of limitation - In
complaints under Section 498A the wife
will invariably be oppressed & interest of
justice demands that the Court should
protect the oppressed wife and punish the
oppressor/offender - It is appropriate for
Court in the case of delayed complaint to
construe liberally Section 473 Cr.P.C. in
favour of a wife who is subjected to
cruelty more so when the conduct of the
accused is such that applying the rule of
limitation will give an unfair advantage to
him or result in miscarriage of justice
(Para 25)

Petitioner and the opposite party no.3 got
married in 1999 - they started living separately
in 2010 - FIR was lodged in August, 2016 after
17 years of marriage - alleged last act of
cruelty
was
committed
against
wife
on
13.10.1988 when she was forced to leave the
matrimonial home - period of limitation ended
on 12.10.1991 (after three years) but charge
sheet was filed on 22.12.1995 - Petitioner
challenged
cognizance
order
and
the
summoning
order
on
the
ground
that
cognizance was taken much beyond the
limitation period - Held - It is evident from a
perusal of the FIR, Charge Sheet, statements
given by the complainant that the complainant
-wife even after leaving the matrimonial home
was not allowed to live peacefully by the
husband or concentrate on her job - petitioner
has been constantly harassing her - No case
made out to show interference - petition
rejected (Para 26, 26, 28, 29)
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

2 All. Dr. Ravendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
Court and ends of justice requires that the
said proceedings be quashed.

20. Consequently, invoking the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the
entire
criminal
proceedings
of
Complaint Case No. 32253 of 2005 (Gopal
versus Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and
another) under Section 379 IPC pending
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad
is hereby quashed.

21. The application stands allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A535
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 No. 1213 of 2018

Dr. Ravendra Prasad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mahmood
Alam,
Gaurav
Maheshwari,
Gayasudden, Ishraq Farooqui, Sunil Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Azad Khan, Mamta Pandey

(A) Cruelty - Indian Penal Code, S. 498-A -
Cruelty - Criminal Procedure Code, S. 468,
S. 472, S. 473 - Cognizance - cognizance
of offence u/s 498-A, may be taken even
after the limitation period i.e. even after
three years, if court is satisfied that the
delay has been properly explained or that
it is necessary so to do in the interests of
justice

(B) Indian Penal Code, S. 498-A - Cruelty
- Maximum Punishment is of three years -
Code of Criminal Procedure - S. 468,
Period of limitation to take cognizance -
Period of limitation is three years -
Continuing Offence - As per S. 472 CrPC,
in case of a continuing offence, a fresh
period of limitation begin to run at every
moment of the time during which the
offence continues - Extension of period of
limitation - S. 473 CrPC provides that any
Court may take cognizance of an offence
after the expiry of the period of limitation,
if it is satisfied on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case that the delay
has been properly explained or that it is
necessary so to do in the interests of
justice - Held - Cruelty is a continuing
offence - on each occasion on which wife
is subjected to cruelty she would have a
new starting point of limitation - In
complaints under Section 498A the wife
will invariably be oppressed & interest of
justice demands that the Court should
protect the oppressed wife and punish the
oppressor/offender - It is appropriate for
Court in the case of delayed complaint to
construe liberally Section 473 Cr.P.C. in
favour of a wife who is subjected to
cruelty more so when the conduct of the
accused is such that applying the rule of
limitation will give an unfair advantage to
him or result in miscarriage of justice
(Para 25)

Petitioner and the opposite party no.3 got
married in 1999 - they started living separately
in 2010 - FIR was lodged in August, 2016 after
17 years of marriage - alleged last act of
cruelty
was
committed
against
wife
on
13.10.1988 when she was forced to leave the
matrimonial home - period of limitation ended
on 12.10.1991 (after three years) but charge
sheet was filed on 22.12.1995 - Petitioner
challenged
cognizance
order
and
the
summoning
order
on
the
ground
that
cognizance was taken much beyond the
limitation period - Held - It is evident from a
perusal of the FIR, Charge Sheet, statements
given by the complainant that the complainant
-wife even after leaving the matrimonial home
was not allowed to live peacefully by the
husband or concentrate on her job - petitioner
has been constantly harassing her - No case
made out to show interference - petition
rejected (Para 26, 26, 28, 29)
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

1. M. Saravana Porselvi Vs A.R. Chandrashekar
@ Parthiban & ors (2008) 11 SCC 520

2. Sirajul & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2015) 9 SCC 201

3. Kamlesh Kalra Vs Shilpika Kalra & ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020 decided on
24.04.2020 Manu/SC/0812/2020

4. Preeti Gupta & ors. Vs St. of Jhar. & ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 1512 of 2010 decided on
13.08.2010

5. Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs St. of Guj. & ors. AIR
2010 Supreme Court 3363

6. Y. Abraham Ajith & ors. Vs Inspector of
Police, Chennai & anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100

7. M. Saravana Porselvi Vs A.R. Chandrashekar
@ Parthiban & ors. (2008) 11 SCC 520

8. Vanka Radhamanohari Vs Vanka Venkata
Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4

9. Arun Vyas Vs Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690

10.
Asha
Ahuja
Vs
Rajesh
Ahuja
Manu/DE/0380/2003

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Mahmood Alam, had prayed for
adjournment today as he says that the name
of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned
in the Charge-Sheet as Dr. Ravindra Pasad
Nigam while the petition has been filed in the
name of Dr. Ravindra Prasad and therefore,
he may be given time to add Sir-name
"Nigam" to the name of the petitioner as
mentioned in the array of parties.

2. Smt. Mamta Pandey, on the other
hand, has vehemently opposed such request
for adjournment. She says that this petition
has been filed three years ago and this is a
deliberate intention to avoid disposal of this
case and keep it pending as the petitioner is
enjoying an interim order in his favour
since 08.03.2018.

3. Pleadings have been exchanged
between the parties and the matter is ripe
for hearing. Since there is a opposition to
the prayer for adjournment today, the
matter is being heard on its merit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
shall make necessary correction in the
name of the petitioner during the course of
the day.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Mamta Pandey, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and 3
and Sri S. P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
State.

6. This petition has been filed
challenging the proceedings arising out of
Case Crime No. 194 of 2016 under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC Police
Station Talkatora, District Lucknow and
the charge sheet filed in Criminal Case No.
66608 of 2017, and the cognizance taken
on 20.02.2017.

7. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
FIR lodged by the opposite party no.3, his
estranged wife was based upon false and
concocted story that the petitioner had
tortured her in the lust for dowry. As per
the FIR, it is evident that opposite party
no.3 was living separately from the
petitioner since 2010 and working as
Medical Officer in Hardoi. The facts of the
case were that the opposite party no.3 was
married to the petitioner on 06.05.1999.
2 All. Dr. Ravendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
Both the petitioner and opposite party no.3
are Doctors and it was a love marriage
without any dowry. Out of the wedlock two
sons were born. The petitioner purchased
two plots of land in the name of the
opposite party no.3 also sometime in the
year 2007, since the petitioner was busy as
a Doctor, the opposite party no.3 developed
illicit relationship with a male nurse
arrayed as opposite party no.4 in this
petition. She also left the matrimonial
house on 22.10.2012 alongwith the sons of
the petitioner in order to enjoy live-in
relationship with the said opposite party
no.4. The opposite party no.3 filed a
Regular Suit No. 2504 of 2012 under
Section 13(1A), (1B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, which is pending before the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow
praying for divorce. The opposite party
no.3 also tried to sell off the land which has
been bought by the petitioner in her name,
and to stop the opposite party no. 3 from
doing so, the petitioner filed a civil suit
registered as Regular Suit No. 289 of 2013
and Regular Suit NO. 970 of 2013, which
is pending before the Court of Civil Judge,
Mohanlal Ganj(Junior Division), Lucknow.
The opposite party no. 3 being annoyed
filed a Criminal Misc. Case No. 7712 of
2012 under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act 2005, before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow in
which an application under Section 23 was
rejected by the Prescribed Authority on
09.12.2014. The entire complaint was
thereafter rejected on 12.08.2015. The
opposite party no.3 being unhappy with the
same cooked up a story which was narrated
in the FIR with regard to the two incidents
that
took
place
on
26.05.2016
and
11.06.2016.

8. After the lodging of the FIR by the
opposite party no.3 on 13.08.2003, the
parties were sent for mediation to settle
their disputes amicably, but the opposite
party no.3 refused to compromise. The
report
was
submitted
of
failure
of
mediation.
The
Investigating
Officer,
thereafter, recorded the statement of the
father of the complainant, the mother of the
complainant, the sons of the complainant
and the petitioner and concluded the
investigation and filed the charge sheet on
which cognizance has been taken without
application of judicial mind by the learned
trial court.

9. It has been submitted that the
petitioner and the opposite party no.3 got
married in 1999, but they started living
separately in 2010. The FIR was lodged in
August, 2016 after 17 years of marriage
and if the petitioner was really harassing
her always, why she continued to keep
quite. The story set up is quite improbable.

10. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, if
the offence is proved, the punishment is of
three years. As per Section 468 of the
Cr.P.C. limitation is in prescribed of taking
cognizance and Sub-Section mentions a
limitation of three years. The cognizance
was taken much beyond the limitation
period, and therefore, cognizance order and
the summoning order should be set aside.

11. Learned AGA for the State has
pointed that the incident in question were of
May and June, 2016, the FIR was lodged in
August, 2016 and cognizance was taken by
the learned trial court at in December, 2017
very much within the limitation period as
prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the several
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
namely:-

(i) M. Saravana Porselvi vs. A.R.
Chandrashekar @ Parthiban and Others
(2008) 11 SCC 520

(ii) Sirajul and Others vs. State of
U.P. and Another (2015) 9 SCC 201

(iii) Kamlesh Kalra vs. Shilpika
Kalra and Others Criminal Appeal No. 416
of
2020
decided
on
24.04.2020
Manu/SC/0812/2020

(iv) Preeti Gupta and Others vs.
State of Jharkhand and Others Criminal
Appeal No. 1512 of 2010 decided on
13.08.2010

(v) Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of
Gujarat and Others AIR 2010 Supreme
Court 3363

13. Learned counsel for the State has
referred to her counter affidavit filed in
March, 2020, wherein it has been stated
that the parents of the opposite party no. 3,
late Umakant Nigam and Dr. Swapna
Nigam purchased two properties one in
locality Sarswa, Krishna Vihar Colony,
Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow
and second in Village Chandsarai, Tehsil
Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow in the
year 2007, and the petitioner is falsely
claiming that the same was bought by him
in the name of his wife. The opposite party
no.3 has filed documentary evidence in the
form of Statement of Account which was
held jointly in the name of the petitioner
and the opposite party no. 3 in Dena Bank,
and also the Statement during crossexamination of the petitioner in an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
before the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, where he admitted that he had no
fixed source of income, and therefore, the
learned trial court had directed the
petitioner to give only Rs. 1,000/- per
month to each of the two sons i.e. total of
Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to
the two sons and nothing to the opposite
party no.3. In the Statement of Account that
has been filed as Annexure to the counter
affidavit, the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and 3 has pointed
several transactions of huge amount of
money that has been deposited on various
dates by cash and also by cheque in
between 2001 to 2009. It has been stated by
the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.3 that the opposite party no.3's parents
are quite well off and her mother was very
successful gynecologist, having her own
clinic. The opposite party no.3, however,
was prevented from practising, even though
she has studied medicine, by the petitioner.
The petitioner insisted that she would be
allowed to practise only when she could set
up her own clinic. The father of the
opposite party No.03 bought plot no. 495 in
the year 2003 admeasuring 15,000 Sqft. of
which 5,000 Sqft. was given to Dr.
Ravindra Prasad, the petitioner whereas
5,000 Sqft. each was made out in favour of
her mother Smt. Swapna Nigam, and her
Brother Rajesh Nigam. The possession of
5,000/- Sqft. of plot No. 495 in village
Sarsawa is still continuing with the
petitioner, so that a hospital/clinic could be
constructed to enable both the opposite
party no.3 and the petitioner to practise
there. However, the opposite party no. 3
was prevented from practising for ten
years, so that she continued to look after
the house and her son, thus, wasting her
education, as a Medical Doctor. It was only
after she was thrown out of the matrimonial
home and her father died that she took up
2 All. Dr. Ravendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
job on contractual basis as a Medical
Officer in District Hardoi. The moment, the
opposite party No.3 started working the
petitioner started torturing her mentally,
accusing her of infidelity and of illicit
relationship with her co-workers and
subordinates. He would say unpleasant
things and abuse her even in front of the
general public. She got tired but she kept
herself distant from such allegations and
kept working and concentrating on her job.
However, the petitioner not being satisfied
with leaving her alone with her sons
attempted to assault the sons and her friend,
who had taken them out for a visit to the
park. Her friend was beaten up brutally,
and therefore, the FIR was lodged by the
opposite party no. 3.

14. With regard to the learned counsel
for the petitioners' argument regarding nonmaintainability of the criminal proceedings
initiated by the order impugned as no case
under Section 498-A of the IPC can be
made out, if the Limitation of three years
has passed; Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on Kamlesh
Kalra vs. Shilpika Kalra and Others
Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020 decided
on 24.04.2020 Manu/SC/0812/2020, Y.
Abraham Ajith and Others vs. Inspector of
Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8
SCC 100 and M. Saravana Porselvi vs.
A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban and
Others (2008) 11 SCC 520.

15. This Court shall now consider
each of such judgements. In the case of M.
Saravana Porselvi(Supra), the parties were
living separately since, 1996, the appellant
had filed a compliant before All Woman
Police Station at Virudh Nagar, where an
enquiry was directed to be conducted. Later
on with the intervention of the friends and
relatives, the parties entered into an
agreement of Divorce on 24.07.1996. It
was also registered in the office of Joint
Sub-Registrar, the appellant received a sum
of Rs. 25,000/- as a permanent alimony.
The first respondent married again. in 1998
and had two children from the subsequent
marriage, It was thereafter that the
appellant filed a complaint against the
respondent i.e. her husband and parents-inlaw in May, 2006, because the woman
stayed at Chennai the first respondent had
married for the second time and she came
to know about the second marriage much
later. On received of summons in a petition
under Section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu
Marriage Act after lodging of FIR, the
respondents
were
arrested
and
an
application for quashing of the FIR was
filed, which was allowed. The appellant
being
aggrieved
against
such
order
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
the ground that since Investigation on the
FIR was still going on the High Court
ought not to have interfered only on the
basis of the statements made by the
respondent
before
the
Court.
The
respondent had asked the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the High Court did not commit
any error as the deed of divroce dated
24.07.1996
was
registered
document,
therefore, the public document of which
judicial notice could have been taken by the
High Court. The Court, thereafter, observed
that the customary divorce may be legal or
illegal, but the fact that such an agreement
had taken placed and Rs.25,000/- had been
handed over by way of the permanent
alimony has not been denied by the
appellant. The appellant being in the legal
profession was held to be aware of legal
implications thereof. The parties had been
living separately for more than ten years. If
the parties were living separately for so
long, a case under Section 498-A of the
Penal Code could not to be said to be made
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
out at such distant point of time.
Particularly in view of the bar of limitation
as contained in Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
Considering the facts of the case that
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it
was unbelievable that the appellant was
really harassed by the husband and her inlaws.

16. The Court dismissed the appeal,
thereafter, leaving it open for the appellant
to question the validity or existence of
customary divorce proceedings, as alleged
by the respondent no.1.

17. In Kamlesh Kalra and Others vs.
Shilpika Kaplra and others(Supra), the
Supreme Court was considered the appeal
filed
by
the
mother-in-law
of
the
complainant,
Shilpika
Kalra.
The
complainant and the son of the appellant had
got married on 28.07.2007. They were both
working. Thereafter, they fell out and started
living separately since 10.06.2009. The
husband had also filed a divorce petition
before the Family Court, Bandra, which was
pending. After a gap of nearly three and a
half years i.e. on 28.01.2013, wife Shilpika
Kalra, filed a complaint in Delhi seeking
registration of FIR against the husband and
his family alongwith his relatives Stridhan
articles was alleged to be in the possession of
all the accused. The police, thereafter,
registered an FIR on 29.10.2014 under
Sections 406, 498-A of the IPC. The only
allegation against the appellant was that being
mother-in-law, she had demanded the salary
of the complainant and took possession of all
wedding gifts and case etc. that were given
by the parents of the complainant to her. The
entire Stridhan of the respondent was with the
mother-in-law.

When the case was heard before
the learned trial court, the husband/Manish
Kumar Kalra deposited Stridhan articles
and a pay order of Rs.5,98,000/- made out
in favour of Shilpika Kalra, which she
refused to accept. A charge sheet was filed,
the learned trial court took cognizance,
thereafter, the police in its report stated that
the respondent had approached them again
on 05.12.2016 with an additional list of
articles, which had not been returned by the
appellant and her son. This list was given
after seven years of divorce petition having
been filed. The learned trial court framed
charges under Section 498-A of the IPC
against the mother-in-law, Kamlesh Kalra
and the Husband, Manish Kalra. Before
charge sheet was filed, the High Court in a
writ petition filed for quashing of FIR
observed that since no charge sheet has
been filed against two of the accused,
petition
filed
by
them
has
become
infructuous. With regard to the other writ
petitioners i.e. Manish Kalra and Kamlesh
Kalra, it was observed that they were not
liable to be proceeded under Section 498-A
of the IPC as FIR was filed beyond the
period of limitation of three years.

18. With regard to Section 406 of the
IPC and retaining of Stridhan and other
weeding gifts by the appellants, the Court
observed that it was continuing offence and
therefore, the FIR was not liable to be
quashed. Since there was a specific
allegation against the appellant, mother-inlaw, Kamlesh Kalra of retaining the goods,
the Husband, Manish Kalra, was not as
responsible and FIR under Section 406 of
the IPC was quashed against him. The
appellant, Kamlesh Kalra filed an appeal
regarding the observations made by the
High Court the respondent, Shilpika Kalra
also filed a Special Leave Petition. Both the
appeals were tagged and heard together.
The Court referred to observations made in
earlier
judgements
like
Vanka
2 All. Dr. Ravendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541
Radhamanohari
Vs.
Vanka
Venkata
Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4 and Arun Vyas vs.
Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690 and a
Judgement of the Delhi High Court in Asha
Ahuja
vs.
Rajesh
Ahuja
Manu/DE/0380/2003
and
regarding
observation of the Court that if the parties
were living separately since long and no
material was shown with regard to
reconciliatory measures being taken for
whatever reasons, and still the respondents
failed to file a complaint within time, the
period of limitation would apply as there
were no allegation that physical and mental
harassment continued beyond the date of
separate living.

19. The Supreme Court observed with
respect to Section 498-A being applied that
the parties were living separately since
2009, a Divorce Petition had already been
filed by the said date. The FIR was filed in
2015 without alleging "continued cruelty"
from the date of separation till the date of
filing of FIR.

20. In Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra), the
respondent No.2, the wife of the appellant
filed a complaint in the Court of the
Magistrate alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. The Magistrate directed the
police to investigate. After investigation the
police filed the charge sheet. The appellant
filed an application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. before the High Court, alleging that
the Magistrate had no jurisdiction even to
entertain a complaint even if the allegations
contained therein were accepted in their
totality, as no part of cause of action had
arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court
concerned.
The
complaint
itself
had
disclosed that the respondent had left the
place of the alleged incident on 15.04.1997,
and therefore, could not have filed the
complaint at that place. The Court observed
after referring to the Sections 177 Cr.P.C.
and 178 Cr.P.C. that the complainant had
on 15.04.1997 left the matrimonial house
on account of alleged dowry demand by the
husband and his family, thereafter, not even
a whisper of allegation were made about
any demand of dowry or commission of
any act constituting an offence at the said
place of matrimonial residence. Therefore,
the logic for Section 178(c) of the Cr.P.C.
relating to "continuing offence" could not
be upheld as no part of cause of action had
arisen in the city concerned.

It is evident from the facts that
the case of Y. Abraham Ajith (Supra) does
not apply to the facts of the instant case.

21. In Sirajul and others vs. State of
U.P. and Others (Supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that while it is
true that the cases covered by statutory bar
of limitation may be liable to be quashed
without any further enquiry, cases not
covered by statutory bar can also be
quashed on the ground of delay in filing of
criminal complaint in appropriate cases as
the Court may consider that there is a
violation of rights of the accused for a
separate trial, which is a part of the Article
21 of the Constitution having regard to the
nature of the offence, the extent of delay,
the person responsible for the delay and
other attending circumstances. The Court
considered
the
fact
that
the
appellant/accused
has
been
earlier
exonerated in proceedings arising out of the
cross-case filed by the complainant by the
Investigating Officer and a report was filed
before the Court. At least after ten years
after the commencement of the trial against
him, the complainant did not even bother to
seek simultaneous trial of the cross-cases.
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The incident was of the year 1992 in
respect of which there are two cross-cases.
The Court observed that the conduct of the
complainant had to be taken into account
and admittedly the complainant had stood
convicted in the cross-case. It would be
unfair
and
unjust
to
permit
the
complainant/ respondent no.2 to proceed
with the complaints filed after 16 years of
the incident.

Evidently, the case cited by the
learned counsel for petitioner does not
apply to the facts of the instant case.

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon Preeti Gupta
(Supra), where Preeti Gupta, the sister-inlaw and a permanent resident of a different
town in a different District and in a
different State and the unmarried brotherin-law of the complainant who was also
living in a different State were falsely
implicated by the complainant, under
Sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120 (B)
of the IPC read with Section 3⁄4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. None of the
prosecution witnesses had stated anything
against the appellant, the appellants had
clearly stated in the appeal that they had
never
visited
the
place,
where
the
complainant alleged that she was physically
assaulted. In the facts of the said case the
Supreme Court observed that since there
was no denial of the assertion made by the
appellant that they had never visited the
place where the complainant was assaulted,
the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. could exercise its power to quash
criminal proceedings initiated against them.
The said case is also inapplicable in the
case of the petitioner.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on Joseph Salvaraj vs.
State of Gujarat and paragraph 24 to 26
thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the civil dispute was going on
between the parties with regard to some
agreement between them for sale/purchase
of telecast rights of God TV in their
respective areas of living. FIR was lodged
by the respondent under Section 406 and
420 of the IPC, whereas a summary Civil
Suit under Order 37 Rule 11 CPC had
already
been
filed
making
similar
allegations. The Court observed that no
case under Section 406, 420 of the IPC was
made out. The allegations in the FIR
disclosed the civil dispute between the
parties and the FIR had been filed only
with an intention to harass and humiliate
the appellant. There appeared to be no
cheating or dishonest inducement for
delivery of property or breach of trust by
the appellant. The Court thereafter, drew a
distinction
between
civil
wrong
and
criminal wrong and relied upon its own as
judgement in Devendra vs. State of U.P.
2009 (7) SCC 207 and observed that when
a dispute between the parties constitutes
only a civil wrong and not a criminal
wrong, the Court would not permit a person
would be harass.

Clearly, the said case is not
applicable in the case of the petitioner.

24. On the other hand in Arun Vyas
and Another vs. Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC
690, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
considering and almost similar facts and
situation where marriage took place of the
respondent with the appellant in 1986 and
the respondent filed a complaint in Court
on 18.10.1995 alleging that she was being
beaten up by her husband and his family, as
her parents failed to satisfy a demand of
dowry, and she ultimately had to leave her
house in October, 1988 came to the
2 All. Dr. Ravendra Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
conclusion that the learned Magistrate
misplaced his sympathy and discharge the
appellants in 1996 taking into account
limitation prescribed under Section 468
Cr.P.C. while ignoring the provisions of
Section 473 Cr.P.C. The Court observed
that Sections 467 to 473 define period of
limitation. The point of commencement of
period of limitation in the case of a
continuing offence is embodied in Section
472 and in the case other than a continuing
offence is contained in Section 469. Such
Sections have been added in the new Code
of Criminal Procedure to protect persons
from prosecution on the basis of State
grievances and complaints which may turn
out to be vexatious. At the same time, it is
necessary to ensure that due to delays on
the part of investigating and prosecuting
agencies and the application of Rule of
Limitation, the criminal justice system is
not rendered toothless and ineffective and
the perpetrators of crime are not placed in
an advantageous position, the Parliament
has classified offences into two categories
looking into the nature and gravity of such
offences and prescribed limitation only in
cases where the punishment is of three
years or less. Even in such cases under
section 473, if any court is satisfied on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case
that the delay has been properly explained
or that it is necessary so to do in the interest
of justice it may take cognizance of an
offence after the expiry of the period of
limitation.

25. The Court further observed on the
basis of Judgment rendered in the Vanka
Radhamanohari
Vs.
Vanka
Venkata
Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4 that the essence of
the offence in Section 498A is cruelty as
defined in the explanation appended to that
Section. It is a continuing offence and on
each occasion on which the respondent was
subjected to cruelty she would have a new
starting point of limitation: the last act of
cruelty
was
committed
against
the
respondent within the meaning of the
explanation on 13.10.1988 when she was
forced to leave the matrimonial home. The
period of limitation for offence under
Section 406 ended on 12.10.1991 but
charge sheet was filed on 22.12.1995,
which was clearly barred by limitation but
the Court should have looked into Section
473 Cr.P.C. which conferred power on it to
take cognizance of an offence after the
period of limitation, if it was satisfied that
it would serve the interest of justice. The
interest of justice demands that the Court
should protect the oppressed and punish the
oppressor/offender. In complaints under
Section 498A the wife will invariably be
oppressed having been subjected to cruelty
by the husband and their in-laws. It is
therefore, appropriate for Court in the case
of delayed complaint to construe liberally
Section 473 Cr.P.C. in favour of a wife
who is subjected to cruelty more so when
the conduct of the accused is such that
applying the rule of limitation will give an
unfair advantage to him or result in
miscarriage of justice.

26. Looking to the explanation the
word cruelty has given under Section 498A
clause (a) says that cruelty means any
willful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger
to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman.

27. It is evident from a perusal of the
FIR and the Charge Sheet and the
statements given by the complainant before
the Investigating Officer and the contents
of the counter affidavit filed in this petition,
that the complainant even after leaving the
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matrimonial home was not allowed to live
peacefully by the husband or concentrate
on her job. The petitioner has been
constantly harassing her and her case falls
clearly under the explanation (a) of the
word ''cruelty' given under Section 498-A
of the IPC.

28. No case made out to show
interference in this petition.

29. Accordingly, the petition stands
rejected.
----------
(2022)02ILR A544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.1805 of 2018

Lalli @ Siv Lali & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, Sections
363, 366 & 376 - The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
Section 3, 4 - father alleged that accused
have enticed away his daughter alleged to be 15
years of age - CMO certified age of his
daughter to be 18 years - In her statement
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., his daughter stated
that she had gone away with the applicant no. 2
out of her own free will and she married the
applicant no. 2 and is residing with him as his
wife - She stated that her father had lodged an
FIR on false allegations and no wrong has been
committed with her - She is living happily with
the applicant no. 2 as her parents used to beat
her with sticks - She ran-away with the
applicant no. 2 out of her own free will -
Marriage certificate was also produced - Held -
FIR was lodged on false allegations & the
proceedings initiated on the basis of the said
FIR are a clear abuse of the process of law -
Proceedings liable to be quashed

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

2. Vineet Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (2017) 13 SCC
369

3. Pankaj Kumar Vs St. of Mah. (2008) 16 SCC
117

4. Geo Varghese Vs St. of Raj. 2021 SCC Online
SC 873

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned
counsel for the applicants and Mr. Prem
Prakash, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of the present application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants
have sought quashing of summoning order
and the order dated 12.10.2017 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5,
Barabanki in C.T. No. 39/2017 as well as
charge-sheet
No.
127/2016
dated
04.09.2016 in case Crime No. 90/2016,
under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4
POCSO Act, Police Station Ramnagar,
District Barabanki.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated,
are that on 29.03.2015 a first information
report under Sections 363, 366 IPC was
lodged at Police Station Ramnagar, District
Barabanki by the opposite party no. 2,