9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition - whether the petitioner should first approach the trial court under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. before invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. 2. Exoneration of the petitioner by the adjudicating authority and the continuation of criminal proceedings by the respondent. 3. Interpretation of Section 245 Cr. P.C. and the power of the Magistrate to discharge the accused. Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition The respondent contended that the petitioner should first approach the trial court under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. before invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. However, the court found that asking the petitioner to go back to the trial court after the adjudicating authority had already exonerated him would be a mockery of justice. The court held that once an Administrative Tribunal or Adjudicating Authority has exonerated the petitioner, criminal proceedings cannot continue on the same facts and material. Therefore, the High Court was deemed the appropriate forum to quash the criminal proceedings. Issue 2: Exoneration of the petitioner and continuation of criminal proceedings The adjudicating authority found no case against the petitioner and exonerated him due to lack of incriminating evidence. Despite this exoneration, criminal proceedings were initiated by the respondent. The court cited previous judgments to establish that if an authority finds no case against a person based on all facts and evidence, criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to proceed. The court concluded that since the adjudicating authority had exonerated the petitioner, there was no merit in continuing the criminal proceedings, and therefore, the High Court quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 245 Cr. P.C. The respondent argued that the petitioner should first approach the trial court under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. before seeking relief from the High Court. However, the court analyzed the provisions of Section 245 and clarified that the Magistrate has the power to discharge an accused even before the date fixed for hearing if satisfied that the accused cannot be convicted and that the charge is groundless. The court emphasized that the word "groundless" means that no conviction can be based on the evidence. The court held that the petitioner was not required to seek discharge from the Magistrate under Section 245(2) and that the High Court could quash the criminal proceedings based on the same facts and circumstances considered by the adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of A.C.M.M., New Delhi.
|
