N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss and Ors.

...;.._ ## N. SURIYAKALA _v._ ## A. MOHANDOSS AND ORS. ## FEBRUARY 12, 2007 ··~. .. _ j ## (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] _Constitution of India, 1950-Article I 36-Scope of-Held: It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal in its discretion-Power under Art. I 36_ c _to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only-Practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realizing the scope of Article 136 deprecated-Words and Phrases"Jn its discretion"-Meaning of._ > The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of High Court D by which it quashed the criminal case instituted by the Appellant against her husband (Respondent) under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant has also filed a maintenance case against the Respondent. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The special leave petition was filed 978 days after the delivery of the impugned judgment i.e. after a delay of888 days. The explanation given in the delay condonation application is not satisfactory and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. [Para 4] [421-E] - "" . ~1 F 2. Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India _in its discretion._ The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests G a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases. Though the discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 is apparently not subject to any limitation, the Court has itself imposed certain limitations upon its own powers. This power has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Paras 8, 10 and 11] (422-B; D; G] H 419 420 ~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R. · A _Mis. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd_ v. _Their Employees,_ AIR.(1959) SC 633; _Kunhayammed & Ors._ v. _State of Kera/a & Anr.,_ (2000) 6 SCC 359; _State of Bombay_ v. _Rusy Mistry,_ AIR (1960) SC 391; _Pratabgarh & Anr._ v. _Mahendra Singh Chawla & Ors.,_ (1982) 3 SCC 331; _Chandra Singh_ v. _State of Rajasthan,_ AIR (2003) SC 2889; _Ram Saran Das and Bros._ v. _Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors.,_ AIR (1962) SC 1326; _Pritam Singh_ B v. _The State,_ AIR (1950) SC 169; _Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd_ v. _State ofBihar,_ AIR (2004) SC 2351; _Jamshed Hormusji Wadia_ v. _Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai,_ AIR (2004) SC 1815; _Narpat Singh_ v. _Jaipur Development Authority,_ f 2002] 4 SCC 666 and _Ashok Nagar Welfare Association_ v. _R.K. Sharma,_ AIR (2002) SC 335, relied on. .}- c _B.S. Joshi and Ors._ v. _State of Hmyana & Anr.,_ AIR (2003) SC 1386, referred to. 3. Nowadays it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realii;ing the scope D of Article 136. Hence it is reiterated that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section I 00 CPC. Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like econstitutional questions, question& of law of general importance or where grave E injustice had been done. If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not b~ able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at _p_ its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute. [Para 17) \~ (424-E-G) 4. The present case is not a fit case to be entertained in exercise of discretion under Article 136. The appellant has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. The appellant filed the criminal case under G Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband's father, mother, brother, sister, etc. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal case filed by the appellant. After all, the appellant will not get any benefit by sending her husband or his family members to jail. She is pursuing her maintenance case, and if she is H so advised she can also file a suit for damages, which if filed will be decided 421 N. SURIY AKALA _v._ A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] A _--f._ on its own merits. [Para 18) [424-H; 245-A-B) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2007. From the final Order and Judgment dated 1.8.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. 0.P. No. 24782 of2003. Yogesh Kanoa and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. '- _)._ E.C. Agrawala, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and Prabu Rama Subramaniam for the Respondents. c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,... MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 in Cr.O.P. No.24782 of2003. D 4 .._' - .... ... _h_ ... 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The special leave petition was filed 978 days after the delivery of the impugnP,d judgment i.e. after a delay of 888 days. We are not satisfied about the explanation given in the delay condonation application and hence in our E opinion the appeal is liable to be. dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Apart from that, we may note that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 by which it quashed the criminal case instituted by the appellant against her husband who is respondent in this case being Crime No.35 of 2000 under Sections F 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 6. Admittedly the appellant has also filed a maintenance case against the respondent. The appellant and respondent were married with each other on 14.11.1996 but the marriage did not work om. The husband had filed a petition before the First Additional Family Court, Chennai seeking a declaration[G ] that his marriage with appellant was null and void but he withdrew that petition stating that he wishes to resume marital life and that petition was dismissed by the Family Court on 9.7.2003. 7. By the impugned judgment the High Court relying on the decision H _-·l_ \ 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R. A[of ][this Court ][in ] _[B.S. Joshi and ][Ors. ]_[v. ] _[State ][of ][Haryana ][& ][Anr., ]_[AIR (2003) ] SC 1386 quashed the criminal case filed by the appellant against her husband. It is against this judgment of the High Court dated 1.8.2003 that this appeal has been filed by the wife-appellant under Article 136 of the Constitution. 8. In this connection we may clarify the scope of Article 136. Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India _in its discretion._ B _k-_ _.k-_ 9. Article 136(1) of the Constitution states: c _"Article I 36(1)_ Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India." D 10. The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests a _discretion_ in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases vide _Mis. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd_ v. _Their Employees,_ AIR ( 1959) SC 633 635, _Kunhayammed & Ors._ v. _State of Kera/a_ E _[& ][Anr., ]_[[2000] 6 SCC 359 and ] _[State ][of ][Bombay ]_[v. ] _[Rusy Mistry, ]_[AIR (1960) ][SC ] 391 (395). In _Municipal Board, Pratabgarh. & Anr._ v. _Mahendra Singh Chawla & Ors.,_ [1982] 3 SCC 331 and in _Chandra Singh_ v. _State of Rajasthan,_ AIR (2003) SC 2889 (vide paras 43 and 45), this Court observed that under Article 136. it was not bound to set aside an order even if it was not in conformity with law, since the power under Article 136 was discretionary. F 11. Though the discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 is apparently not subject to any limitation, the Court has itself imposed certain limitations upon its own powers vide _Ram Saran Das and Bros._ v. _Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors.,_ AIR (1962) SC 1326 (1328) and _Kunhayammed_ v. _State of Kera/a,_ [2000] 6 SCC 359 (para 13). The G Supreme Court has laid down that this power has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. Thus, in _Pritam Singh_ v. _The State,_ AIR (1950) SC 169, this Court observed (vide para 9) as under:- "On a careful examination of Art.136 along with the preceding article, it seems clear that the wide discretionary power with which this Court H _:_ ..... )- ·~ _r-_ 't-'"·. N. SURIYAKALA _v._ A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 423 _-t-_ _j_ ... is invested under is to be exercised _sparingly and in exceptional_ A _cases_ only, and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can come up before it under this article." 12. In _Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd._ v. _State of Bihar,_ AIR (2004) SC 2351, this Court observed about Article 136 as under :- B "It is an extraordinary jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court with implicit trust and faith, _and extraordinary care and caution has to be observed in the exercise of this jurisdiction._ Article 136 _does not confer a right of appeal on a party_ but vests a vast discretion in the Supreme Court meant to be exercised on the c considerations of justice, call of duty and eradicating injustice." 13. In _Jamshed Hormusji Wadia_ v. _Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai_ AIR (2004) SC 1815 (para 33), this Court observed as under:- ~ .,.._' -~ "The discretionary power of the Supreme Court is plenary in the sense D that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. The very conferment of the discretionary power defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of such power. _The power_ is _permitted to be invoked not in a routine fashion but in very exceptional circumstances as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a_ E _decision sought to be impugned before the Supreme Court shocks the conscience._ This overriding and exceptional power has been vested in the Supreme Court _to be exercised sparingly_ and only in furtherance of the cause of justice in the Supreme Court _in exceptional cases only when special circumstances are shown to exist._ " F 14. In the same decision this Court also observed as under:- ... J:"1 "It is well settled that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer a right to appeal on any party; it confers a _discretionary power_ on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. _Article I 36 cannot be read as conferring a right on anyone to prefer an appeal to this_ G _Court;_ it only confers a right on a party to file an application seeking leave to appeal and a discretion on the Court to grant or not to grant such leave in its wisdom. When no law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot be called in aid to spe/l _out such_ a right. The Supreme Court would not under Article 136 constitute H 424 _k-_ A SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R. itself into a tribunal or court just settling disputes and reduce itself to a mere court of error. _The power under Article 136 is an extraordinary power to be exercised in rare and exceptional cases and on well-known principles."_ 15. In _Narpat Singh_ v. _Jaipur Development Authority,_ [2002] 4 SCC 666, B this Court observed as under:- "The exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Art.136 of the Constitution on the Supreme Court is discretionary. _It does not confer a right to appeal on a party_ to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power of widest amplitude on the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice. On one hand, _it is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly, with caution. and care and to remedy extraordinary situations or situations occasioning gross failure of justice;_ on the other hand, it is an overriding power whereunder the Court may generously step in to impart justice and remedy injustice." c D 16. In _Ashok Nagar Welfare Association_ v. _R.K. Sharma,_ AIR (2002) SC 335, this Court observed that _even in cases where special leave is granted, the discretionary power vested in the Court continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing._ 17. Nowadays it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds E of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realizing the scope of Artide 136. Hence we feel it incumbent on us to reiterate that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section I 00 CPC. Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last ::ourt in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court. The F Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like constitutional questions, questions of law of general importance or where grave injustice had been done. If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not be able to deal with important questions G[relating to the Constitution or the law ][or ][where grave injustice has been done, ] for which it was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute. _k-_ ~- \ _,, ~- • ,._ 18. In the present case we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case H to be entertained in exercise of our discretion under Article 136. The appellant 425 N. SURIYAKALA _v._ A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU. J.] has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. What can she possibly get by prosecuting him as well as his family members? The appellant filed the criminal case under Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband's father, mother, brother, sister, etc. ln exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal case filed by the appellant. After all, the appellant will not get any benefit by sending her husband or his family members to jail. She is pursuing her maintenance case, and if she is so advised she can also file a suit for damages, which if filed will be decided on its own merits. 19. With the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. c •·