9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1977 (3) TMI 150 - SC - Indian LawsWhether there was sufficient material on the record on which to frame charges against the respondents? Whether the High Court was justified in holding that the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court and in order to secure the ends of justice? Held that - Appeal dismissed. As for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can-be said reasonably to be possible. We are therefore in agreement with the view of the High Court that the material on which the prosecution proposes.to rely against the respondents is wholly inadequate to. sustain the charge that they are in any manner connected with the assault on the complainant. We would, however, like to observe that nothing in our judgment or in the judgment of the High Court should be taken as detracting from the case of the prosecution, to which we have not applied our mind, as against accused Nos. 1 to 9. The case against those accused must take its due and lawful course.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings by the High Court. 2. Power of the Sessions Court to frame charges. 3. Sufficiency of material to proceed against the accused. 4. High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Proceedings by the High Court: The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of its inherent powers, quashed the proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka against the respondents. The High Court found that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners (accused Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 to 20) and accordingly quashed the proceedings. 2. Power of the Sessions Court to Frame Charges: At the commencement of the trial, the prosecution contended that the Sessions Court could frame a new charge under Section 120-B of the Penal Code, despite the specific sections mentioned in the committal order. The Sessions Court agreed, stating it had the jurisdiction to frame appropriate charges based on the facts and circumstances. This view was not challenged by the defense. The Sessions Court, while discharging accused Nos. 11, 12, and 16, observed that there was "some material to hold that they have had something to do with the incident" for the remaining accused and adjourned the case for framing specific charges. 3. Sufficiency of Material to Proceed Against the Accused: The High Court quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was no sufficient material to connect the respondents with the crime. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court is entitled to examine the reasons given by the Sessions Judge and determine whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court can quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or if the ends of justice require it. 4. High Court's Inherent Powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the material on record was inadequate to connect the respondents with the crime. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's inherent powers are designed to prevent court proceedings from becoming a weapon of harassment or persecution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the High Court that the material on record was insufficient to sustain the charges against the respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. The case against accused Nos. 1 to 9 was not affected by this judgment and was to proceed as per the due process of law.
|
