Where matrimonial disputes result in complete breakdown of marriage accompanied by prolonged, vexatious and multi-forum litigation, the Supreme Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, may dissolve the marriage and grant comprehensive relief including quashing of all proceedings, awarding lump sum permanent alimony @ Rs,5 crores, regulating custody and restraining future litigation, in order to secure complete justice and finality.

 

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Matrimonial dispute — Irretrievable breakdown — Dissolution of marriage —

Where parties are embroiled in prolonged matrimonial discord marked by acrimony, multiplicity of proceedings and complete breakdown of relationship, rendering marriage dead for all practical purposes — Supreme Court justified in dissolving marriage in exercise of Article 142 to do complete justice.

(Paras 53–56, 62(i))

---

Article 142 — Complete justice — Quashing of all proceedings — Scope —

Supreme Court, to bring quietus to dispute, can quash all pending civil, criminal and miscellaneous proceedings between parties, including FIRs, complaints and proceedings against relatives and even advocates, where such proceedings arise out of matrimonial discord and are found to be vexatious and oppressive.

(Paras 53–56, 62(ii))

---

Maintenance — Non-compliance — Conduct of husband — Effect —

Persistent default in payment of maintenance and deliberate attempts to frustrate execution proceedings by filing multiple litigations constitute contumacious and evasive conduct, justifying grant of comprehensive financial relief.

(Paras 19–22, 53, 59, 62(v))

---

Article 142 — Permanent alimony — Lump sum settlement —

In order to secure financial stability of wife and children and to avoid prolonged litigation, Court may award consolidated lump sum covering past, present and future maintenance, child support and litigation expenses.

(Paras 60–62(v))

---

Child custody — Welfare of children — Paramount consideration —

Welfare of minor children being paramount, custody granted to mother, with structured visitation rights to father including periodic access and shared vacation custody.

(Paras 57, 62(iii))

---

Parental responsibility — Cooperation for child welfare —

Father directed to cooperate in matters concerning child’s passport/official documentation — failure to comply may invite coercive action including contempt.

(Para 62(iv))

---

Residence — Conditional relief — Vacation of premises —

Wife permitted to retain possession of matrimonial residence subject to condition of vacating the same upon receipt of full settlement amount, in terms of undertaking furnished to Court.

(Para 62(vi))

---

Conduct of litigant — Abuse of process — Effect —

Initiation of numerous proceedings against spouse, relatives and legal representatives reflects vindictive misuse of judicial process, warranting strong intervention and consolidation of disputes by Supreme Court.

(Paras 53–54)

---

Article 142 — Moulding of relief — Comprehensive jurisdiction —

Supreme Court may mould relief comprehensively to include dissolution of marriage, quashing of proceedings, financial settlement, custody directions and future restraints, to ensure complete justice and finality of litigation.

(Paras 56, 62)

---

Undertaking — Future litigation restraint —

Party directed not to initiate further civil or criminal proceedings against spouse, relatives or advocates — breach of undertaking to entail serious consequences.

(Para 62(vii))

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where matrimonial disputes result in complete breakdown of marriage accompanied by prolonged, vexatious and multi-forum litigation, the Supreme Court, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, may dissolve the marriage and grant comprehensive relief including quashing of all proceedings, awarding lump sum permanent alimony @ Rs,5 crores,  regulating custody and restraining future litigation, in order to secure complete justice and finality.

whether the appellant is indeed conversant with the day-to-day management of the Company, thereby justifying the issuance of summons to her. Section 141 of N.I. Act - Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases.No-

 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 138 & 141 — Vicarious liability of Director — Essential averment

For fastening liability on a Director, it is mandatory that the complaint contains a specific averment that the accused was “in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company” at the time of commission of offence; absence thereof is fatal. (Para 7)

---

Director — Liability — Mere designation — Insufficient

Mere holding of office as Director does not automatically attract criminal liability under Section 141 NI Act; there is no deemed liability. (Para 7)

---

Director — Signing of Board Resolution — Effect

Signing of a Board Resolution does not establish that the Director was involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company and is insufficient to attract vicarious liability. (Para 8)

---

Complaint — Absence of specific role — Effect

Where the complaint is silent as to the role of the Director and does not attribute responsibility for conduct of business, prosecution is liable to be quashed. (Para 8)

---

Summoning order — Validity — Mechanical issuance impermissible

Summoning of a Director without satisfaction of statutory requirements under Section 141 amounts to improper exercise of jurisdiction. (Paras 7–8)

---

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.482 — Maintainability despite revision

Exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not barred merely because a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed or decided. (Paras 10–11)

---

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S.482 — Scope

Inherent powers are wide and can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process, including quashing of proceedings where basic ingredients of offence are absent. (Paras 10–11)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

A Director can be prosecuted under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only if the complaint contains specific averments that such Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time; mere designation as Director or signing of Board resolutions does not satisfy the statutory requirement, and in absence of such foundational averments, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: When a qualified medical professional performs a r...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: When a qualified medical professional performs a r...: advocatemmmohan Medical Negligence — Criminal liability — Standard Criminal prosecution of a doctor requires proof that the act was such th...

Medical Negligence — Criminal liability — Standard

Criminal prosecution of a doctor requires proof that the act was such that no reasonable medical professional would have done; mere adoption of one accepted procedure over another does not amount to criminal negligence. (Para 16)

---

Medical Procedure — Alternative treatment — Validity

Where multiple accepted medical options exist, the doctor is entitled to choose the appropriate procedure based on clinical judgment. (Para 17)

---

Consent — Scope — Alternative procedures

Consent covering alternative procedures, where indicated in the consent form, is sufficient unless manipulation is proved. (Paras 17, 19)

---

Forgery — Consent form — Proof

Allegation of interpolation or forgery in medical records must be supported by cogent evidence such as forensic proof; mere allegation is insufficient. (Paras 19, 20)

---

Medical Board opinion — Evidentiary value

Independent expert opinion confirming appropriateness of procedure strongly negates criminal liability. (Paras 6, 17, 20)

---

Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing — Scope

Courts may examine factual aspects in quashing jurisdiction where continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process. (Para 18)

---

Abuse of process — Criminal proceedings

Where no prima facie case exists and materials support the accused, continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process of court. (Para 20)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

When a qualified medical professional performs a recognized and medically appropriate procedure, supported by expert medical opinion, and there is no credible evidence of lack of consent or forgery, continuation of criminal prosecution amounts to abuse of process and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE (Para-wise, Court Style)

1. The de facto complainant’s minor son (aged about 1½ years) was admitted for Orchidopexy (placement of undescended testicle). (Para 3)
2. It was alleged that:
   • No consent was given for Orchidectomy (removal of testicle),
   • Yet, the doctor performed Orchidectomy, and
   • The consent form was allegedly interpolated to include the said procedure. (Para 3)
3. FIR was registered under multiple IPC provisions including forgery, negligence and conspiracy. (Para 4)
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed alleging:
   • Rash and negligent act,
   • Manipulation of consent form,
   • Forgery of medical records. (Para 8)
5. A Medical Board was constituted, which opined:
   • Orchidectomy was a medically appropriate procedure,
   • It is a recognized alternative in such cases,
   • Consent should ideally be obtained. (Paras 6–7)
6. The Director of Medical Services further opined:
   • Consent form existed,
   • Procedure was ethically and medically justified. (Para 7)
7. High Court refused to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 10)
8. Appeal was filed before Supreme Court.
9. supreme court allowed the appeal.