Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1995 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1995 (4) TMI 307 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charge framed u/s 500 IPC by the Magistrate.
2. Revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court.
3. Application of Section 482 CrPC by the High Court.
4. Delay in proceedings and its impact on justice.

Summary:

1. Quashing of Charge Framed u/s 500 IPC by the Magistrate:
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents u/s 500 IPC. The Magistrate framed the charge after considering the evidence u/s 244 CrPC. The respondents challenged this in a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The High Court quashed the charge, stating that the lower courts did not apply their minds to the material on record and incorrectly exercised their jurisdiction.

2. Revisional Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court:
The Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition, observing that the Magistrate had framed the charge based on a prima facie case. The High Court, however, quashed the charge, acting beyond its revisional jurisdiction and entering into the merits of the case, which was not appropriate at the interlocutory stage.

3. Application of Section 482 CrPC by the High Court:
The High Court quashed the charge u/s 482 CrPC, which is meant to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. The High Court erred in assessing the material and concluding that the complaint could not be proceeded with.

4. Delay in Proceedings and Its Impact on Justice:
The respondents argued that the matter should not proceed after twelve years. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant was not responsible for the delay and emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings. The Court criticized the frequent interference by superior courts at initial or interlocutory stages, which hampers the progress of criminal cases.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the case proceed according to law and as expeditiously as possible.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates