9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 608 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the investigating agency had not obtained previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate as required by Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C., the initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondent is bad in law and consequently it was liable to be quashed?
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of previous sanction under Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings under Section 153-B IPC. 2. Whether remanding an accused to judicial custody amounts to taking cognizance of the offence. 3. Scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Requirement of Previous Sanction under Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent on the grounds that the investigating agency had not obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government, State Government, or District Magistrate as required by Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. creates a bar against the court taking cognizance of an offence under Section 153-B IPC without prior sanction. However, it does not prohibit the registration of a criminal case, investigation by the police, or submission of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court concluded that the absence of prior sanction does not invalidate the registration of a case or the investigation process. Issue 2: Remanding an Accused to Judicial Custody and Cognizance of the Offence The High Court held that remanding the respondent to judicial custody amounted to taking cognizance of the offence. The Supreme Court examined the term "cognizance" and concluded that it involves the judicial application of the Magistrate's mind to the facts of the case. It does not occur merely by remanding an accused to custody under Section 167 Cr.P.C., which is a procedural step anterior to taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court determined that the Magistrate's act of remanding the respondent to custody did not constitute taking cognizance of the offence, and thus Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. was not applicable at that stage. Issue 3: Scope of Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are meant to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. These powers can be used to quash criminal proceedings but should not interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigations in cognizable offences. The High Court had quashed the proceedings while the investigation was still in progress, which was deemed inappropriate by the Supreme Court. The Court cited several precedents to assert that judicial interference during the investigation stage is unwarranted. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the criminal proceedings against the respondent. It clarified that the requirement of prior sanction under Section 196(1-A) Cr.P.C. applies to the court taking cognizance and not to the registration or investigation of a case. Remanding an accused to custody does not equate to taking cognizance of the offence. The High Court's use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings during the investigation was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court's decision ensures that the investigation can proceed without undue judicial interference, preserving the statutory process.
|
