2004 (12) TMI 665 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the respondent was correctly discharged from the criminal case filed against him by HC? Whether the High Court exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Court after a long lapse of time?

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against discharge from criminal case, Allegations of conspiracy and murder, Discharge of main accused, Lack of direct evidence, Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CPC.

1. Appeal against discharge from criminal case:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the High Court of Allahabad's order discharging the respondent from a criminal case. The respondent was accused in a case involving conspiracy and murder under IPC Sections 120-B, 302, and 109. The High Court had quashed the charges framed against the respondent, leading to this appeal.

2. Allegations of conspiracy and murder:
The prosecution alleged that the respondent conspired with another accused, Dr. Sanjay Singh, to murder Syed Modi, a renowned badminton player. The motive behind the murder was said to be related to Syed Modi's marriage to Amita Kulkarni, which was objected to by certain individuals. The respondent was implicated based on his association with the main accused and other accomplices involved in the murder.

3. Discharge of main accused and lack of direct evidence:
Significantly, the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh, who was believed to have hatched the conspiracy, was discharged along with Amita Kulkarni. The absence of direct evidence linking the respondent to the crime was a crucial point in the case. The court noted that the alleged conspiracy lost its basis with the discharge of the main accused, and there was no substantial evidence to prove the respondent's involvement in the murder.

4. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CPC:
The appellant contended that the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was delayed. However, the court observed that the delay was due to the finality of the main accused's discharge in 1994. The High Court, considering the circumstances, condoned the delay in the respondent's challenge to the charges. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that there were no grounds for interference in this case.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order discharging the respondent from the criminal case due to lack of evidence and the finality of the main accused's discharge.