442 of 1990 and Criminal R.P. No.
Against that order, companyplainant filed Criminal R.C. No.
The case was companymitted to the Sessions Court, Nagercoil and was numbered as Sessions Case No.
601 of 1996 before the High Court on the ground that there was numberprima facie case for framing of charges against them.
Against that Order dated 13th June, 1996, accused Nos.3 to 6, that is, the present appellants preferred Criminal Revision case No.
50,000/ in cash.
10,000/ each on the appellants to be paid to the informant companyplainant , wife of accused number 1 and directed the Sessions Court to dispose of the case within two months from the date of the companymunication of the Order.
A3 to A6 also.
After preliminary investigation, on 18th October, 1989, a charge sheet was filed against A1 to A6 under Sections 498 A , 406, 420, 315 I.P.C. and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
440 of 1990, the High Court by its detailed judgment and order dated 9th July 1993, allowed the said Revision Petitions by holding that there were sufficient grounds on record to establish prima facie case against the accused for framing the charges and Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in law as well as totally overlooked the material facts available on record by discharging the appellants.
60,000/ in cash, 65 soverigns of gold jewellary for the bride and nine soverigns or similar jewellary for the groom that out of Rs.60,000/ , Rs.50,000/ were paid that after the marriage, she was treated cruelly and there were unlawful demands for a companyour television and Rs.
FIR was lodged by Josephine Jaya on 29th September, 1989 stating that her in laws demanded from her father Rs.
442 of 1990 before the High Court of Madras.
2 to 6, accused No.1 her husband administered certain medicine with a view to abort her pregnancy.
Admittedly, in Criminal C. No.
Accused Nos.
By Order dated 9th July, 1993, the High Court allowed the Revision case filed by the companyplainant and set aside the order of discharge.
10,000/ to be paid by each of the appellants while rejecting a frivolous or vexatious petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the charge framed against the appellants?
3 to 6 filed an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code for their discharge.
The Court while dismissing the same observed that the proceedings have been dragged on for 8 years and that petition was filed without disclosing even to the learned companynsel that revision against the order of number framing of charges was allowed earlier by the High Court by holding that there was sufficient material for framing charges.
That application was allowed by holding that they had number demanded dowry and there is numbermaterial to show that medicine for abortion was administered at their instigation.
It is also alleged that at the instigation of in laws accused number.
Despite the aforesaid order and by suppressing the same, appellants filed petition under Section 482 before the High Court for quashing the charges framed against them.
10 of 1989.
The question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court has jurisdiction to impose exemplary companyt of Rs.
SHAH,J. Leave granted.
In such circumstances, Court has imposed the companyts to be paid to the wife of accused No.1 to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.
In pursuance of the said Order, on 13th June, 1996, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Nos.
