High Court reaffirms seven-year limitation for Section 406 IPC complaints and upholds inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC—binding on subordinate courts within Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | C482/1327/2022 of CHANDRAWATI SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010110722022 |
| Date of Registration | 01-08-2022 |
| Decision Date | 29-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital |
| Bench | Single-Judge |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a complaint under Section 406 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as time-barred by Section 468 CrPC and as an abuse of process after divorce. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that a complaint under Section 406 IPC filed more than seven years after the alleged offence is barred by the limitation period prescribed in Section 468 CrPC and that continuing such proceedings after the matrimonial relationship has been dissolved constitutes an abuse of process. It ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash proceedings in such circumstances. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Application of the statutory limitation under Section 468 CrPC; exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process; consideration of a divorce decree as rendering continuation unjust. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent-wife was ousted from her matrimonial home in December 2014 and alleged retention of Streedhan; complaint under Section 406 IPC was filed in April 2021; over seven years elapsed since December 2014; marriage was legally dissolved by divorce decree in 2019. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that complaints under Section 406 IPC are barred by a seven-year limitation under Section 468 CrPC if filed after that period.
- Affirms that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash complaints barred by statutory limitation and rendered moot by a divorce decree.
- Holds that continuation of long-delayed proceedings post-divorce amounts to abuse of process and unnecessary harassment.
- Signals that subordinate courts must apply Section 468 CrPC strictly in private matrimonial property disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Limitation Period: The Court noted that more than seven years had passed since the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust in December 2014, making the April 2021 complaint time-barred under Section 468 CrPC.
- Abuse of Process: It held that allowing proceedings to continue after such delay would constitute an abuse of the court’s process, especially given the already dissolved matrimonial relationship.
- Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC: The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings in the interest of justice and to prevent unnecessary harassment of the applicants.
- Effect of Divorce Decree: The dissolution of marriage by a 2019 decree was a decisive factor in determining that the continuation of the criminal complaint served no legitimate purpose.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Applicants)
- No prima facie case made out after perusal of material.
- Respondent-wife voluntarily left matrimonial home; all Streedhan was already retrieved.
- Delay of over seven years bars the complaint under Section 468 CrPC.
- Marriage was dissolved by divorce in 2019; further proceedings amount to harassment and abuse of process.
State (Respondent No. 1)
- Magistrate properly recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and rightly took cognizance and issued summons.
Respondent-Wife (Respondent No. 2)
- She suffered cruelty and was compelled to leave; did not take her belongings.
- Notice dated 22 February 2021 triggers a fresh limitation period for a continuing offence under Section 472 CrPC.
Factual Background
In January 2012, the respondent-wife married applicant No. 4. In December 2014 she was ousted from her matrimonial home over dowry issues, and her Streedhan was allegedly retained. After sending a legal notice in February 2021 and receiving no reply, she filed a complaint under Section 406 IPC in April 2021. The marriage was dissolved by divorce decree in 2019. The applicants challenged the summoning orders as time-barred and an abuse of process.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 200 CrPC: Recording of complaint and statements for taking cognizance.
- Section 202 CrPC: Preliminary inquiry by Magistrate before summons.
- Section 406 IPC: Criminal breach of trust; the offence under challenge.
- Section 468 CrPC: Seven-year limitation for private complaints (held applicable).
- Section 472 CrPC: Continuing offence and fresh limitation argument (rejected).
- Section 482 CrPC: Inherent powers to quash proceedings as an abuse of process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Strict application of Section 468 CrPC limitation.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Emphasizes the seven-year bar for private complaints.