9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (7) TMI 1154 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1-3 by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The appellant, a defacto complainant, and Respondent Nos. 1-3 (accused persons) were residents of Komaripalem village and members of the Congress Party. Due to political rivalry and jealousy, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 developed ill will against the appellant, who had gained popularity and won the Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency Elections as an independent candidate. They allegedly conspired with others to kill the appellant. On 07.11.2007, the appellant was attacked by hired goons, resulting in injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the accused under various sections of the IPC, but the High Court quashed the proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1-3. 2. Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: Section 482 of the Code deals with the inherent power of the High Court to make orders to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any court, or secure the ends of justice. The section envisages three circumstances for its exercise: - To give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. - To prevent abuse of the process of any court. - To secure the ends of justice. 3. Principles for Quashing Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court has laid down several principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482: - Abuse of the process of the court or securing the ends of justice (R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab). - Legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceeding. - Allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute the offence alleged. - No legal evidence or evidence fails to prove the charge (State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors.). - The High Court should exercise this power sparingly and with caution. 4. Application of Principles: The High Court quashed the proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1-3, concluding that the materials placed by the prosecution were inadequate and the ingredients of the offence alleged were not made out. However, the Supreme Court noted that the FIR, charge sheet, and statements of witnesses provided sufficient material to make out a prima facie case against the respondents. The complainant had detailed the incident, and the investigation revealed a conspiracy involving the respondents. 5. Evidence and Investigation: The investigating officer's report included details about the conspiracy, the involvement of Respondent Nos. 1-3, and their communication through cell phones. The statement of the appellant and his wife also pointed towards the respondents' involvement. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have analyzed the reliability of the evidence at this stage, as it is the function of the trial judge to appreciate the evidence. 6. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its power in quashing the criminal proceedings. The materials on record provided sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial. The High Court's assumption that the prosecution could not end in conviction was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the case against Respondent Nos. 1-3 in accordance with the law. Order: The criminal appeal is allowed, and the trial court is directed to proceed with the case against Respondent Nos. 1-3.
|
