2019 (10) TMI 1385 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal to discharge the appellants in a prosecution case under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code - appellants submits that there is no specific attribution to the appellants in the suicide note, the appellants are the sister-in-law of the deceased and her husband - HELD THAT - Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the discharge application to the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur for fresh consideration and to pass a reasoned and speaking order to his satisfaction keeping all aspects of the matter in mind, including the submissions made before us on behalf of the respondent State. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of High Court declining to interfere with Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to discharge appellants in a prosecution case under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the order of the High Court where the appellants contested the refusal of the Additional Sessions Judge to discharge them in a prosecution case under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants argued that there was no specific attribution to them in the suicide note, as they were the sister-in-law and husband of the deceased. On the other hand, the State informed that the prosecution evidence was complete, and the defence evidence was almost closed. Mention was made of a compromise petition signed by the deceased, the contents of which were not known at that stage. The Supreme Court found that the order refusing to discharge the appellants suffered from an abdication of jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the grounds for quashing a criminal proceeding and deciding on an application for discharge by the accused are distinct. The Court clarified that the reasons for allowing or disallowing an application for discharge are different from the grounds for quashing a criminal proceeding. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge erred in not considering the application for discharge based on the dismissal of an earlier application to quash the prosecution. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the discharge application to the Additional Sessions Judge for fresh consideration. The Additional Sessions Judge was directed to pass a reasoned order, taking into account all aspects of the matter, including the submissions made on behalf of the State. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court.