9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1876 - SC - Indian LawsJurisdiction - power of High Court to quash the complaint - whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) against respondent No. 2 holding that there was no prima facie case made out against respondent No. 2 for issuance of the process of the summons to him for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323 341 379 and 504 IPC? - HELD THAT - The High Court was not justified in quashing the aforementioned complaint filed by the appellant herein against respondent No. 2. It should have been tried on merits in accordance with law. The High Court quashed the complaint essentially on two grounds; First no sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C was obtained by the prosecution for filing the complaint against respondent No. 2 and the second there are contradictions in the statement of the complainant and the witnesses - both the grounds which found favour with the High Court for quashing the complaint are not well founded and hence legally unsustainable. The complaint is restored to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law - appeal allowed.
Issues:
Appeal against quashing of complaint under Sections 323, 341, 379, and 504 IPC by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against the quashing of a complaint filed under Sections 323, 341, 379, and 504 of the IPC by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 482 and quashed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, which had taken cognizance of the complaint. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint based on the lack of prima facie case and absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and examining the record, held that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint. The Court emphasized that the complaint should have been tried on merits in accordance with the law. The High Court had relied on two grounds for quashing the complaint: lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. and contradictions in statements of the complainant and witnesses. The Supreme Court found both grounds to be legally unsustainable. Regarding the first ground, the Supreme Court noted that considering the nature of allegations against the respondent, who was a Police Officer, no prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was necessary. The Court clarified that for Section 197 to apply, the alleged offense must have a nexus with the discharge of official duties, which was not the case here. As for the second ground, the Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 482 by assessing witness statements for inconsistencies. Such assessments should be made during trial or by the Appellate Court, not under Section 482 proceedings. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the complaint case to proceed on merits in accordance with the law. The Court instructed the Magistrate to decide the case without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court, ensuring a fair trial without prejudice to either party.
|
