2001 (9) TMI 1163 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the power of the Magistrate to add accused persons without following proper procedure, the legality of invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the correct procedure for taking cognizance of offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Power of Magistrate to Add Accused Persons:
The respondents filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash charges framed against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court held that the Magistrate had erred in adding four respondents as accused persons without following the procedure under Section 203 of the Code. The case was remanded back to the Magistrate for inquiry as per Section 203(2) with directions to pass necessary orders if a case under Section 395 IPC is made out.

Legality of Invoking Section 482 of the Code:
The appellant argued that the respondents had no right to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code after their earlier revision petition under Section 397 had been dismissed. The High Court's reliance on Section 482 was challenged, citing the need to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure expeditious criminal trials.

Procedure for Taking Cognizance of Offences:
The High Court directed the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 203 of the Code, which was deemed incorrect. The Magistrate had initially taken cognizance under Chapter XIV of the Code, which empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of offences based on complaints, police reports, or information received. The Supreme Court clarified that the Magistrate's jurisdiction extends to taking cognizance of offences even against persons not initially named as accused if evidence suggests their involvement.

The judgment emphasized the importance of preventing delays in criminal trials and ensuring justice is served promptly. It highlighted the need to exercise the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 sparingly and only in cases of failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanisms. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and upholding the Additional Sessions Judge's decision.