9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the quashing of proceedings by the learned Single Judge. 2. Scope and exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Quashing of Proceedings The appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge, which set aside the proceedings initiated against the respondents in CC. No. 1613/1998 on the file of the CJM, Tumkur. The respondents were charged with offences punishable u/s 465, 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The allegations involved the submission of fake bank guarantees and impersonation. The learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was no "definite evidence" of direct involvement of the accused and no material to hold that the accused had committed theft or forgery. The State of Karnataka contended that the learned Single Judge erred by assessing the evidence as if conducting a trial, which is not relevant at the stage of taking cognizance/framing of charges. Issue 2: Scope and Exercise of Power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The Supreme Court emphasized that the exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code is an exception and not the rule. It is meant to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with caution. The Court highlighted that the High Court should not function as a Court of appeal or revision while exercising this power. The categories where inherent power can be exercised include cases where there is a legal bar against the institution, where allegations do not constitute the offence alleged, or where the evidence manifestly fails to prove the charge. The Court also noted that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Supreme Court referred to precedents, including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which outline the circumstances under which proceedings can be quashed. The Court concluded that the factual position indicated the commission of offences, and the learned Single Judge's order could not be maintained. The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations should not be considered an opinion on the merits of the case, which should be decided by the concerned Court at an appropriate stage.
|
