9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 534 - SC - Indian LawsHigh court jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. - Rejection of the application - HELD THAT - The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. When the factual scenario is considered in the background of legal principle set out, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the application in terms of Section 482 of the Code. This is a case when the cognizance was taken, summons were issued by mistake and the names of the appellants were also mentioned in the order dated 15.2.1999. Since the police have not found any material against the appellants, the learned CJM without following the procedure as indicated above could not have directed issuance of summons so far as they are concerned. There was no indication that learned CJM disagreed with the opinion of the investigating agency and therefore ordered issuance of summons. On the contrary, as noted by learned CJM later that was a mistake and, therefore, he had ordered to strike of the names of the appellants. The High Court's order is set aside. The names of the appellants shall be struck of from the array of accused persons. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Patna High Court rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The power of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to recall or review its order. 3. The scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. The procedural requirements for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the order passed by the Patna High Court rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The appellants challenged the order of the Patna High Court which dismissed their petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its approach. The High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to correct the mistake made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in issuing summons to the appellants despite the police finding no material against them. 2. The power of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) to recall or review its order: The CJM initially took cognizance and issued summons against the appellants based on a charge sheet that did not implicate them. Upon realizing the mistake, the CJM ordered to strike off their names. However, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, set aside this order, holding that the CJM did not have the power to recall or review his order under Section 362 of the Code, which prohibits altering a judgment except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court acknowledged this limitation but emphasized that the High Court should have intervened to correct the error using its inherent powers under Section 482. 3. The scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of the court, or secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is meant to ensure substantial justice and prevent misuse of the judicial process. The High Court failed to recognize the scope of Section 482, which could have been invoked to correct the mistake of the CJM and prevent injustice to the appellants. 4. The procedural requirements for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons: The Supreme Court reiterated the procedural requirements for a Magistrate when taking cognizance of an offence based on a police report. The Magistrate has the discretion to accept the report, direct further investigation, or take cognizance and issue process if the evidence justifies it. In this case, the CJM issued summons without proper consideration of the police report, which did not implicate the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that the CJM's later realization of the mistake and the subsequent order to strike off the names of the appellants should have been upheld, as there was no material against them. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Section 482 of the Code. The CJM's initial order to issue summons was a mistake, and the subsequent order to strike off the names of the appellants was correct. The High Court should have exercised its inherent powers to rectify the error and prevent injustice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed that the names of the appellants be struck off from the array of accused persons. The appeal was allowed.
|
