2005 (12) TMI 596 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings against absconding accused based on acquittal of co-accused.
2. Applicability of the principle of "issue estoppel" and "res judicata" in criminal trials.
3. Relevance and admissibility of judgments in the cases of co-accused under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act.
4. Scope and exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Against Absconding Accused Based on Acquittal of Co-Accused:
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings against them under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that their co-accused were acquitted after trial. They argued that continuing the trial against them would be an abuse of the court process and would not serve any useful purpose. The court noted that the acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle the absconding accused to the same relief, as each case must be judged on its own merits. The court emphasized that the trial against the absconding accused should proceed independently based on the evidence presented in their case.

2. Applicability of the Principle of "Issue Estoppel" and "Res Judicata" in Criminal Trials:
The petitioners contended that the principle of "issue estoppel" should apply, precluding the prosecution from re-litigating the same issues already decided in favor of the co-accused. The court referred to various precedents, including Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and Manipur Administration v. Thokchom Bira Singh, to clarify that issue estoppel applies to prevent the re-litigation of factual issues already settled by a competent court. However, the court distinguished that this principle does not bar the trial of a different accused for the same offense, as it primarily concerns the admissibility of evidence rather than the prohibition of the trial itself.

3. Relevance and Admissibility of Judgments in the Cases of Co-Accused Under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act:
The court examined whether the judgments of acquittal in the cases of co-accused are relevant under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. It concluded that such judgments are not relevant to bar the trial of the absconding accused. The court held that while the judgments can be used to show the parties involved and the fact of acquittal, they cannot be used to preclude the trial or to rely on the appreciation of evidence from the earlier case. The court cited Raju Rai v. State of Bihar to support this view.

4. Scope and Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The court discussed the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that these powers are broad but must be exercised sparingly and with caution. The court noted that these powers are intended to prevent the abuse of the court process and to secure the ends of justice. It highlighted that the inherent powers should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecutions and that judicial wisdom must be applied to identify exceptional cases where such powers are warranted. The court referred to several precedents, including State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, to illustrate the principles guiding the exercise of inherent powers.

Summary of Legal Position:
1. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are broad but must be used to prevent abuse of the court process and to secure the ends of justice.
2. No straight jacket formula can be prescribed for the exercise of these powers; each case must be considered on its own merits.
3. The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle the absconding accused to the same relief; the trial must proceed based on the evidence in their case.
4. Judgments of acquittal in the cases of co-accused are not relevant under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act to bar the trial of the absconding accused.
5. The principle of "issue estoppel" does not bar the trial of a different accused for the same offense but concerns the admissibility of evidence.
6. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the court process and to secure justice.

Conclusion:
The court overruled the decision in Arun Kumar's case to the extent it suggested that the acquittal of co-accused could be a ground to quash the proceedings against absconding accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The cases were directed to be considered by the learned Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.