1987 (8) TMI 455 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the High Court's order to delete respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the criminal revision petition.
2. Whether respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were necessary parties in the criminal revision petition.
3. Scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Order to Delete Respondents Nos. 2 and 3:

The High Court directed the deletion of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were not parties to the original complaint, from the criminal revision petition. The appellants contended that the High Court's order was passed without proper opportunity for hearing, although it was admitted that the petitioners were heard. The Supreme Court found no grievance in the High Court's procedure, stating, "This is not unusual and there is no grievance that the petitioners had no hearing."

2. Whether Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 Were Necessary Parties:

The appellants argued that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were necessary parties because the allegations in the complaint pertained to them. The learned Advocate General for the State of Karnataka contended that joining unnecessary parties in a revision arising out of criminal proceedings could have far-reaching consequences and potentially delay the proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision to delete the names, noting, "Admittedly these two respondents who have been deleted by the impugned order of the High Court were not parties before the court below."

3. Scope of the High Court's Revisional Jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC:

The appellants emphasized that Section 397 empowers the High Court to call for records and examine the propriety of the order, while Section 401 provides the revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's role is to examine the legality, correctness, and propriety of the order issuing process based on the complaint and accompanying papers. The Court stated, "The High Court in revision under Section 401 read with 397 only is concerned to see those papers which were before the court below."

The Supreme Court further elaborated that the High Court is not expected to investigate the motivations behind the prosecution or the involvement of external parties. It emphasized, "The High Court is only expected to see the legality, correctness or the propriety of the order, which is an order of issue of process."

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, concluding that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not necessary parties in the criminal revision petition and that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction was correctly exercised. The appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the High Court was maintained.