MADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAOversusMADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 991

                   Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao
                                v.
                     Madduri Sunanda & Others
               (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1802-1803 of 2013)
                                 30 July 2025
           [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the criminal proceedings filed against the appellants
       in-laws by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of
       the marriage between her and her husband and also when both
       the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise to settle all
       disputes, ought to be quashed.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing –
       Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of – Complaint
       and FIR filed against the appellants u/ss.494 and 498A, IPC
       by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of the
       marriage between her and her husband – Appellants sought
       quashing thereof, rejected by High Court – Further, in the suit
       filed by respondent No.1 w.r.t a gift settlement deed, both the
       parties had agreed for an amicable compromise to settle all
       disputes before Lok Adalat – Whether, the complaint and FIR
       against the appellants, ought to be quashed:
       Held: Yes – There is a decree of divorce which has attained finality
       and the parties have parted ways – The Complaint and FIR against
       the appellants was filed by respondent No.1 subsequent to the
       dissolution of the marriage – Furthermore, by way of the order
       passed by the Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat, a full and final settlement
       of all claims was effectuated between the parties by way of which
       all the differences between them have come to be resolved – Once
       the parties have genuinely settled all their differences amicably,
       the continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties
       serves no legitimate purpose and would only be an instance of
       harassment to the appellants having regard to the peculiar facts of
       the case – The complaint and all proceedings arising out of the said
       complaint made by respondent No.1, quashed – Invoking powers

* Author
2074                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    u/Art.142, the FIR u/ss.494 and 498A, IPC and all other criminal
    proceedings commenced pursuant thereto also quashed – Penal
    Code, 1860 – ss.494 and 498A. [Paras 16, 22]

                              Case Law Cited
    Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana [2024] 12 SCR 559 :
    (2025) 3 SCC 735; Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal
    Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”); Arun
    Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
    No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”); Ramawatar v.
    State of Madhya Pradesh [2021] 10 SCR 499 : (2022) 13 SCC
    635; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [2019] 2 SCR 864 : (2019)
    5 SCC 688; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012] 8 SCR 753 :
    (2012) 10 SCC 303; Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [2025] 3 SCR
    289 : (2025) 4 SCC 78 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India; Penal
    Code, 1860; Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

                             List of Keywords
    Complaint and FIR filed subsequent to the dissolution of the
    marriage; Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
    Quashing; Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Settlement; Full
    and final settlement of all claims; Decree of divorce; Parties parted
    ways; Settlement between the parties; Amicable compromise to
    settle all the disputes; Abuse of the process of law; Disputes settled;
    Complaint and FIR quashed; Ends of Justice; Inherent powers.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
    1802-1803 of 2013
    From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2012 of the High Court
    of AP at Hyderabad in CRLP No(s). 5270 and 7262 of 2011

                         Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Lakshmi Raman Singh, Tamim Qadri,
    Saeed Qadri, Saahil Gupta, Danish Ali, Ms. Radha Meena.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        2075

     Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others


     Advs. for the Respondents:
     K. P. Sundar Rao, Vinay Kumar Gupta, Sumit Panwar, Wajeeh
     Shafiq, C. K. Rai, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh,
     Dhruv Yadav.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Nagarathna, J.

     Being aggrieved by the common order dated 30.03.2012 passed by
     the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby
     the High Court while disposing of Criminal Petition Nos.5270 &
     7262 of 2011 refused to quash the legal proceedings initiated by
     respondent No.1, Smt. Madduri Sunanda, against her husband,
     Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao, and original appellants Nos.1 to 3.
     Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who were father-in-law and mother-in-law
     of respondent No.1 respectively died during the pendency of these
     appeals and therefore the appeals have stood abated vis-à-vis them.
     Appellant No.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.1.
2.   Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the marriage between
     Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “husband”,
     for the sake of convenience) and respondent No.1 was solemnized
     on 01.05.2001. Both of them moved to the United States of America
     on 02.10.2002. After about three years, the relationship between the
     husband and the wife turned sour and consequently, both parties
     mutually decided to seek divorce and the same was granted by the
     Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on 15.03.2007.
3.   Upon returning to India, on 05.11.2008, respondent No.1 filed
     a matrimonial suit being O.P. No.1298 of 2008 seeking relief of
     restitution of conjugal rights. She subsequently filed a police complaint
     on 20.11.2008 against her husband that finally culminated into
     Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the court of Additional Chief
     Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Meanwhile, respondent
     No.1 moved a motion before the Superior Court of California to set
     aside the judgment of divorce, which was dismissed on 19.01.2010.
     On 08.11.2010, respondent No.1 filed a case under Section 12 of
     the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being
2076                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     DVC No. 30 of 2010 before the court of III Metropolitan Magistrate,
     Visakhapatnam alleging cruelty by the husband and the appellants
     herein. Thereafter, she also filed FIR No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011
     against the appellants at Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari
     District under Sections 494 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code,
     1860 (for short, “IPC”).
4.   Aggrieved by the multiple legal proceedings initiated by respondent
     No.1, the husband and the appellants filed Criminal Petition
     No.5270/2011 on 28.06.2011 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
     challenging Complaint Case No.991/2010. Furthermore, they filed
     Criminal Petition No.7262/2011 challenging DVC No.30/2010. The
     husband also filed Criminal Petition No.2851/2011 under Section
     482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”)
     seeking to quash FIR No.28 of 2011.
5.   The High Court clubbed the aforementioned Criminal Petition
     Nos.2851/2011, 5270/2011 and 7262/2011 and disposed them of
     by the impugned common order dated 30.03.2012. The High Court
     dismissed all the three criminal petitions observing that respondent
     No.1 and her husband had lived together before, during and after
     the divorce proceedings and respondent No.1 had given birth to a
     child during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Hence, the
     High Court refused to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC
     to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.
6.   Aggrieved by the impugned common order of the High Court, the
     appellants have preferred the present appeals. This Court, vide order
     dated 17.08.2012, issued notice to the respondents and granted
     stay of further proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 against
     the appellants. Further, considering that the matter could be settled
     through mediation, this Court vide order dated 04.07.2013, directed
     the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre at the High Court
     of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Mediation was unsuccessful.
     Thereafter, this Court granted leave vide order dated 18.10.2013.
7.   During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, it appears
     that respondent No.1 preferred OS No.9 of 2014 on the file of XII
     Additional District Court, Pithapuram, seeking to set aside a gift
     settlement deed that was entered into between her husband and
     respondent No.1 on 06.10.2006 wherein a certain property was
     transferred from respondent No.1 to her husband. On agreement of
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            2077

    Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others


     the parties, they were referred to the Lok Adalat vide Lok Adalat Case
     No.436/2022 and they resultantly agreed for an amicable compromise
     to settle all the disputes. Consequently, the Lok Adalat deemed it fit
     to pass an award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority
     Act, 1987 on 28.12.2022. The award is extracted hereinbelow:

                “AWARD U/S.21 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES
                            AUTHORITY ACT, 1987
           Plaintiffs and defendant and counsel for plaintiffs and
           defendant are present before Lok Adalat and they agreed
           for the following terms:
           i) The plaintiffs admitted that the gift settlement deed
           dated 06.10.2006 executed by the 1st plaintiff in the name
           of the defendant is validly executed and admits that the
           defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the
           plaint schedule property by virtue of the gift settlement
           deed dated 06.10.2006.
           ii) It is settled between the parties that the plaint schedule
           property has to be disposed of as early as possible by
           the defendant herein and out of the sale proceeds, 50%
           of the proceeds of such sale proceeds must be given to
           the 1st plaintiff.
           iii) In view of the compromise between the parties, the
           defendant herein paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
           (Rupees twenty lakhs only) to the 1st plaintiff which is
           agreed to be adjusted in the 50% of sale consideration
           to be given by the defendant to the 1st plaintiff.
           iv) In view of the compromise arrived in between the 1st
           plaintiff and the defendant, 1st plaintiff agreed to withdraw
           her contests in all pending cases before various Courts filed
           by her. In view of the compromise arrived in between the
           parties, the 1st plaintiff herein agreed to withdraw all cases
           including pending appeals before the Hon’ble High Court
           of Andhra Pradesh and Supreme Court and cooperate
           with the defendant to file compromise memos before the
           Courts concerned and intimate about their compromise
           before the Courts concerned.
2078                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          v) The 1st plaintiff herein thought that there will not be any
          chance for cohabitation in between the 1st plaintiff and
          the defendant, the 1st plaintiff will take separate steps by
          way of filing petitions before the competent Court of law
          for dissolution of marriage between the 1st plaintiff and
          the defendant.
          vi) In view of the compromise arrived in between the
          parties, both parties agreed not to make any future claims
          against each other relating to the properties in any manner
          whatsoever. The 1st plaintiff also agreed not to make any
          claim against the defendant in any manner either for herself
          or for the daughter Hasini.
          Accordingly, award is passed in terms of compromise.
          1st Plaintiff is entitled for refund of court fee.
          Both parties have been explained the terms of award in
          Telugu language and that they understood the terms of
          compromise and affixed their signatures in evidence of
          their consent for the terms of award.”
8.   This Court, for the purpose of withdrawal of the cases from the
     concerned Trial Courts, ordered vide order dated 30.01.2025 that
     the interim order dated 17.08.2012 would not be an impediment.
9.   There is no representation on behalf of the respondent-State. In
     the circumstances, we have heard learned senior counsel for the
     appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.
10. Sri S. Wasim A. Qadri, learned senior counsel for the appellant
    submitted that there has been a settlement between the parties
    through Lok Adalat Case No.436/2022. A copy of the Settlement is
    submitted across the bar. He submitted that the marriage between
    respondent No.1 and her husband was dissolved by a decree of
    divorce vide order dated 15.03.2007 which has attained finality.
    The complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act was
    made thereafter by respondent No.1 herein. In the circumstances,
    by exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
    India, this Court may quash the said complaint and all proceedings
    arising out of the said complaint which in any case were stayed by
    this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         2079

    Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others


11. Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent
    No.1, submitted that the High Court was right in dismissing the
    petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and there is no merit in these
    appeals. Alternatively, he submitted that appropriate orders may be
    passed in this appeal.
12. This Court, in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana,
    (2025) 3 SCC 735, has clearly held that family members of the
    husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings
    arising out of matrimonial discord. The Court observed that it has
    become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the
    husband’s family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement,
    merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. It was
    further held that where the allegations are bereft of specific particulars,
    and particularly where the relatives sought to be prosecuted are
    residing separately or have had no connection with the matrimonial
    home, allowing the prosecution to proceed would amount to an abuse
    of the process of law. The Court noted that criminal law is not to be
    deployed as an instrument of harassment and that judicial scrutiny
    must be exercised to guard against such misuse.
13. Furthermore, this Court has consistently taken the view that where
    the matrimonial relationship has come to an end by way of divorce,
    and the parties have since settled into their respective lives, criminal
    prosecution emanating from that past relationship ought not to be
    permitted to linger as a means of harassment. In the cases of Mala
    Kar vs. State Of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No.1684 of 2024
    dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”) and Arun Jain vs. State of NCT
    of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9178 of 2018
    dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”), this Court, while exercising its
    powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed the
    criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord against the
    husband. The Court took note of the fact that the couple therein
    had divorced and held that in such a situation, to continue with
    criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law.
    The reasoning adopted therein applies with equal force to the facts
    of the present case. Paragraph 12 of Mala Kar and the relevant
    paragraph in Arun Jain are extracted respectively as under:
           “12. Following the aforesaid judgment, in the instant case,
           we have already noted that there has been a decree of
           divorce passed between the parties dated 18.10.2014. It
2080                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          is thereafter that on 06.04.2015, the FIR was registered in
          respect of the criminal complaint filed on 09.08.2014. More
          significantly, both the appellant No.2 and respondent No.2
          have since remarried and are leading their independent
          lives. Therefore, both parties have accepted the decree
          of divorce passed by the Family Court on 18.10.2014.
          Moreover, the appellant No.2-former husband of the
          respondent No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
          (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as ex-gratia to the respondent
          No.2 herein in full and final settlement of all her claims,
          with a prayer to this Court to do complete justice in this
          matter and for invoking its powers under Article 142 of the
          Constitution of India.
                                      xxx
          Following the aforesaid judgments, in the instant case, it
          is noted that the appellants and respondent No.2 were
          married on 01.11.1996 and a daughter was born to them
          on 19.04.2001. It is also stated by learned counsel for the
          appellants that appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on
          23.04.2007 and thereafter respondent No.2 sought divorce
          which was granted by the Competent Court on 04.04.2013.
          It was only thereafter on 31.10.2013 that respondent No.2
          filed the complaint against the appellants herein and the FIR
          was registered on 13.02.2014 and the chargesheet was filed
          on 22.09.2015. It is also to be noted that the proceedings
          initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic
          Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2008 by respondent No.2
          herein culminated in the dismissal of the said proceeding
          on merits by order dated 28.07.2017 which has attained
          finality. Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar and crucial
          aspects of the present case and by following the order
          dated 19.03.2024, the appeal is liable to be allowed as we
          find that this is a fit case where we can exercise powers
          under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
14. This Court, in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
    (2022) 13 SCC 635, while considering quashing of proceedings under
    Section 482 CrPC, in the context of the provisions of the Scheduled
    Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      2081

    Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others


     took into consideration the fact that there had been a settlement
     arrived at between the parties in the said case and therefore,
     exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
     the Court quashed the complaint, the FIR, and subsequent criminal
     proceedings against the accused therein. The relevant portion of
     the said judgment is at paragraph 15 which is extracted as under:
           “15. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of
           Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Another.
           has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
                “48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its
                jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power
                to make such order as is necessary for doing
                complete justice “between the parties in any
                cause or matter pending before it”. The very
                nature of the power must lead the Court to set
                limits for itself within which to exercise those
                powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a
                statutory provision governing a subject, except
                perhaps to balance the equities between the
                conflicting claims of the litigating parties by
                “ironing out the creases” in a cause or matter
                before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of
                restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling.
                It is well recognised and established that this
                Court has always been a law-maker and its
                role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It
                is a “problem solver in the nebulous areas”
                (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of India) but the
                substantive statutory provisions dealing with
                the subject matter of a given case cannot be
                altogether ignored by this Court, while making
                an order under Article 142. Indeed, these
                constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be
                controlled by any statutory provisions but at
                the same time these powers are not meant to
                be exercised when their exercise may come
                directly in conflict with what has been expressly
                provided for in a statute dealing expressly with
                the subject.”
2082                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


15. This Court took note of the peculiar facts arising in the aforesaid
    case and the fact that a settlement had been arrived at between the
    parties and consequently, found it appropriate to invoke powers of
    this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quashed
    the criminal proceedings to do complete justice between the parties.
    Further, this Court set-aside the order of the High Court and allowed
    the appeal filed therein.
16. Following the aforesaid judicial dicta, in the instant case, we have
    noted the following facts in the instant case:
     (i)    That the parties have parted ways which has attained finality
            inasmuch as there is a decree of divorce granted by the Superior
            Court of California, County of Alameda on 15.03.2007;
     (ii)   That Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the Additional Chief
            Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and FIR No.28 of 2011
            dated 18.03.2011 against the appellants at Gollaparlu Police
            Station, East Godavari District under Sections 494 and 498A
            of the IPC have been filed by respondent No.1 subsequent to
            the dissolution of the marriage between her and her husband;
     (iii) That the suit filed by respondent No.1 in in OS No.9 of 2014
           on the file of the XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram with
           regard to gift settlement deed has ended in a Lok Adalat Case
           No.436/2022. The terms of award under Section 21 of the Legal
           Services Authority Act, 1987 are extracted above;
     (iv) That both the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise
          to settle all disputes before Lok Adalat;
     (v)    That vide order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the Lok Adalat in
            Lok Adalat Case No.436/2022, a full and final settlement of all
            claims was effectuated between the parties by way of which
            all the differences between them have come to be resolved;
     (vi) That respondent No.1 has agreed to withdraw all the pending
          cases including pending appeals before various Courts;
     (vii) That both the parties have agreed not to make any future claims
           against each other with respect to the properties.
17. In the considered opinion of this Court, the power under Article
    142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in
    matters of this nature. Once the parties have genuinely settled all
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      2083

    Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others


     their differences amicably, the continuation of criminal proceedings
     between the parties serves no legitimate purpose. It only prolongs
     bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes
     that are no longer alive. The law must be applied in a manner that
     balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally
     important duty to prevent its misuse. In appropriate cases, the power
     to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring
     quietus to personal disputes that have run their course.
18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Laxmi
    Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, observed in paragraph 15.5 thereof
    that while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the
    criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which
    are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society,
    on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the
    victim and the offender, it is necessary to consider the antecedents
    of the accused, the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
    accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had
    managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc.
19. Applying the aforesaid to the present case, we find that the appellant
    herein would not come within the scope of the aforesaid observations
    by which the plea of the appellant for quashing of the FIR and
    consequent proceedings against him could be declined.
20. We also refer to Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
    303 wherein this Court observed that where the High Court quashes
    a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
    between the offender and the victim has been settled, although
    the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
    continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and
    justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is
    put to an end and peace is restored, securing the ends of justice
    being the ultimate guiding factor. In this regard, a specific reference
    was made to offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating
    to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to
    the victim but the offender and the victim have settled all disputes
    between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences
    have not been made compoundable. This Court observed that the
    High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash
    the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied
    that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood
2084                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
     proceedings, justice shall be the casualty and ends of justice shall
     be defeated.
21. In Naushey Ali vs. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78, one of us
    (Viswanathan, J.) observed in paragraph 32 that proceeding with
    the trial, when the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, would
    be futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be given
    effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of
    process particularly when the dispute is settled and resolved.
22. Taking note of the aforementioned factual matrix, the submissions
    of learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
    respondent No.1, and by applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgments
    to this case, we allow the appeals and quash the complaint and all
    proceedings arising out of the said complaint made by respondent
    No.1. In the circumstances, while invoking our powers under Article
    142 of the Constitution, we quash the FIR No.28 of 2011 dated
    18.03.2011 registered at Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari
    District under Sections 494 and 498A of the IPC and all other criminal
    proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Consequently, the order
    dated 30.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra
    Pradesh at Hyderabad is set aside. We hold so for the reason that
    the prosecution of the criminal case by respondent No.1 herein is
    not as per her intention any longer. Moreover, the continuation of the
    criminal proceeding would only be an instance of harassment to the
    appellants having regard to the peculiar facts of the case. Further,
    no fruitful purpose would be served in the continuation of the court
    proceedings and taking it to its logical end. In this context, we have
    relied upon the judicial dicta of this Court discussed above.
     The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms exercising our
     jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey