9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is open for the High Court or the Subordinate Courts to award compensation to a wife/complainant in a criminal case instituted by her against her husband for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC, even if she fails to establish the guilt of the accused. 2. Whether the High Court or the Subordinate Courts can award compensation by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a precedent. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Awarding Compensation in Absence of Proved Guilt The primary issue addressed was whether the High Court or Subordinate Courts have the authority to award compensation to a complainant wife in a case where the husband is acquitted of the charge under Section 494 IPC (bigamy). The court scrutinized the decision of the learned Magistrate, who had awarded compensation despite acquitting the accused. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Satyanarayan. The court emphasized that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within India. However, it clarified that only the "law declared" is binding, not the result or factual findings of a particular case. The court cited various Supreme Court judgments, including Prakash Chandra v. State of U.P. and Amritsar Municipality v. Nazara Singh, to differentiate between binding legal principles and non-binding factual determinations. The court noted that in Laxmi Devi's case, the Supreme Court had awarded compensation under its extraordinary jurisdiction provided by Article 142 of the Constitution, which is not available to High Courts or Subordinate Courts. Therefore, the compensation awarded in Laxmi Devi's case does not serve as a binding precedent for other courts to follow in similar cases where the accused is acquitted. Issue 2: Precedent and Application of Supreme Court Judgments The second issue was whether the High Court or Subordinate Courts can award compensation by treating the Supreme Court's judgment in Laxmi Devi's case as a binding precedent. The court analyzed the principles of precedent and concluded that while Supreme Court judgments are binding under Article 141, this binding nature applies only to the legal principles declared, not to factual findings or discretionary reliefs granted under Article 142. The court reiterated that in criminal cases, the law of precedent is not typically applicable due to the unique facts of each case. It cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Prakash Amichand Shah v. State of Gujarat and State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Jagadamba Oil Mills, to support this view. The court concluded that the principle underlying a decision is binding, but the specific relief granted under extraordinary jurisdiction is not. Conclusion: The court held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Devi's case, where compensation was awarded despite acquittal, does not have binding precedent effect under Article 141. The High Courts and Subordinate Courts do not have the power to award compensation by applying this judgment as a binding precedent. Consequently, the court set aside the learned Magistrate's order awarding compensation in the present case, deeming it illegal for blindly following the decision in Taramani's case without considering the specific facts and circumstances. Final Judgment: The petition was allowed, and the order of the learned Magistrate awarding compensation was set aside.
|
