Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the SLP is not entertained because of undue delay and because the case does not fall within the exceptional circumstances contemplated by Article 136.

Summary

The wife, N. Suriyakalan, filed a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband A. Mohandoss and his relatives, which the Madras High Court later quashed. She also filed a maintenance petition. An SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed 978 days after the High Court judgment, exceeding the permissible delay. The Supreme Court held that the delay was unacceptable and that Article 136 is a residual, discretionary power, not a regular appeal, to be exercised only in exceptional cases. The Court observed that the present matter did not meet the criteria for special leave, especially as the appellant could pursue her maintenance claim and any damages suit on its merits. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the scope and limitation of Article 136 of the Constitution in granting special leave?
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain an SLP filed after an inordinate delay of 888 days?
Whether the High Court's order quashing the criminal case under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act can be set aside under Article 136?

Legislation cited

Subjects

Article 136Special Leave PetitionDiscretionary jurisdictionDelay condonationSection 498ADowry Prohibition ActMaintenance petitionSupreme Court practiceCriminal procedure

Judgment

...;.._ N. SURIYAKALA A
v.
A. MOHANDOSS AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 12, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

··~. 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
to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only-Practice of filing
c
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
4 husband (Respondent) under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4
.. _ j of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant has also filed a maintenance case
against the Respondent.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court E
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]
- "" 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
a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases. Though G
. ~1 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]
419 H
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, f2002] 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
N. SURIY AKALA v. A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 421

--f. on its own merits. [Para 18) [424-H; 245-A-B) A
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. B
Yogesh Kanoa and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant.

). E.C. Agrawala, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and Prabu Rama
'-
Subramaniam for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
,... MARKANDEY KATJU, 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 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
h 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) k-
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
B 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.
.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 ofRajasthan,
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 r-
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)
't-'"·.
SC 169, this Court observed (vide para 9) as under:-

H
"On a careful examination of Art.136 along with the preceding article,
it seems clear that the wide discretionary power with which this Court
-
N. SURIYAKALA v. A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 423

-t- ... is invested under is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
cases only, and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard
A

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
j
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:-

"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
J:"1 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 2 S.C.R.

A itself into a tribunal or court just settling disputes and reduce itself k-
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 k-
appeal on a party to litigation; it only confers a discretionary power
of widest amplitude on the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying
c 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."
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
relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done,
G 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.

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
N. SURIYAKALA v. A. MOHANDOSS [MARKANDEY KA TJU. J.] 425

has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. What can she A
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 B
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.
c
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

•·