Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 2030 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking quashing of criminal proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - HELD THAT - In the present case, on looking into the passport documents and immigration papers which have been brought on record before this Court by the accused-appellant. The said papers do indicate that on the date in question i.e. 27.08.2005 the accused-appellant was not in India. At no point of time either before the High Court or before this Court any dispute has been raised with regard to the said fact. The complainant had not made the appellant a party in the earlier complaint. In the subsequent FIR the grievance of the complainant is in respect of the incident alleged to have been taken place on 27.08.2005. When it is not in dispute that on the said date i.e. 27.08.2005 the accused appellant was not in India, the document(s) evidencing the said fact which are public documents can and should be looked into. Looking into the passport papers and the immigration records, we find that the prosecution, if allowed to stand, would be a futile exercise and that the present was an appropriate case where the High Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the High Court is set aside and the impugned proceeding pending in the Court of Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Khajekala arising from PS Case No.153/05 against the accused-appellant is quashed - appeal allowed.
Issues:
- Appeal against the refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. - Consideration of earlier complaint and subsequent FIR. - Evaluation of the accused's claim of being out of India on the date of the incident. - Examination of the relevance of public documents in quashing criminal proceedings. Analysis: The judgment deals with an appeal where the accused-appellant contested the High Court's decision not to quash criminal proceedings against him under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant, who is the wife of the accused's brother, had previously filed a complaint with similar allegations, but the accused was not named. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged naming the accused, with allegations similar to the earlier complaint, except for an incident on a specific date. The accused claimed to have been out of India on that date, supported by passport and immigration details. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court usually does not consider the accused's defense or the veracity of documents during quashing proceedings. However, exceptions exist where public documents or undisputed facts can be considered. In this case, the accused's absence from India on the date of the incident was crucial. The Court examined the passport and immigration papers, which confirmed the accused's absence. Notably, the complainant did not name the accused in the earlier complaint, and the incident in the subsequent FIR was dated when the accused was abroad. As there was no dispute regarding the accused's absence, the Court found the prosecution futile and quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused-appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering public documents and undisputed facts in appropriate cases to prevent unnecessary legal actions.
|