2005 (2) TMI 851 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR and prosecution withdrawal.
2. High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Appellant's right to oppose withdrawal and prosecute personally.
4. Delay in filing the special leave petition and its condonation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of FIR and Prosecution Withdrawal:
The appellant, a complainant in FIR No. 26 dated 10.2.1998, alleged that the respondents committed criminal acts punishable under various sections of the IPC. The High Court quashed the FIR based on the State's decision to withdraw the complaint. The Supreme Court found this action premature since the application under Section 321 of the Code was still pending and had not been entertained by the trial court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have quashed the complaint solely on the government's decision to drop the prosecution without examining the merits of the complaint.

2. High Court's Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's acceptance of the State's statement to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Code was erroneous. The High Court's jurisdiction under this section is restricted and should only be exercised if the complaint does not make out a triable case. The decision to withdraw prosecution is irrelevant for quashing a complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's direction to the police and the Magistrate not to prosecute was without jurisdiction.

3. Appellant's Right to Oppose Withdrawal and Prosecute Personally:
The appellant opposed the withdrawal of prosecution and sought permission to prosecute the case personally if the State did not pursue it. The Supreme Court acknowledged this right, highlighting that the appellant filed a reply against the withdrawal recommendation and sought to continue the prosecution personally.

4. Delay in Filing the Special Leave Petition and Its Condonation:
There was a delay of 680 days in filing the special leave petition, which was filed after Criminal Appeal No. 964 of 2002 came up for hearing. The Supreme Court condoned the delay, noting that refusing to do so would perpetuate an illegal order. The Court emphasized that the interest of justice required condoning the delay, especially since an identical order had been quashed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the High Court's orders and remanding the matter back to the trial court for consideration of the application under Section 321 of the Code. The Court instructed that the application, if filed, should be dealt with in accordance with the law and relevant judgments. The appellant's right to pursue the case personally was upheld, and the delay in filing the special leave petition was condoned to prevent injustice.