2013 (5) TMI 944 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legal propriety of the order taking cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Justification of the High Court's order discharging the accused-respondent.

Summary:

Legal Propriety of the Order Taking Cognizance:
The Supreme Court examined whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's order taking cognizance was legally valid. The Court referred to various precedents, including *Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab*, *Kishori Singh v. State of Bihar*, and *M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka*. It concluded that the Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even if the police report suggests no case against the accused. The Magistrate can independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance if deemed fit. Therefore, the order taking cognizance by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was found to be legally sound.

Justification of the High Court's Order Discharging the Accused-Respondent:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's decision to discharge the accused-respondent, Prem Prakash, based on the setting aside of the cognizance order by the revisional court. The High Court had observed that the order of framing charges could not be sustained as the order taking cognizance had not been challenged. However, the Supreme Court noted that the accused-respondent had suppressed the fact that charges had already been framed against him by the trial court. This suppression of facts amounted to playing fraud with the court. The principle "when infrastructure collapses, the superstructure is bound to collapse" was deemed inapplicable as the order was obtained through fraudulent means. The Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the High Court's order and restore the order framing charges, directing the trial to proceed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the orders passed by the High Court and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.1, Jodhpur, were set aside. The trial pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 3, Jodhpur, was directed to proceed in accordance with law.