9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 417(3) of the CrPC regarding the right of a complainant to appeal against an acquittal. - Determination of whether a case instituted upon a complaint entitles the complainant to seek special leave to appeal. - Analysis of the legal procedures and definitions related to the initiation and trial of criminal cases. - Examination of the specific circumstances of the case involving a complaint by the appellant and subsequent acquittal of the respondents. - Review of the High Court's decision regarding the appellant's locus standi to file an appeal under Section 417(3). - Assessment of the impact of a revision application and the appellant's statutory right to move the High Court for special leave. Detailed Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against the High Court of Mysore's decision regarding the appellant's right to seek special leave under Section 417(3) of the CrPC. The appellant, Bhimappa, had filed a complaint against the respondents for setting his house on fire, leading to their acquittal by the Sessions Judge. The primary issue is the interpretation of Section 417(3) and whether a case instituted upon a complaint allows the complainant to appeal against an acquittal. The Court delves into the legal procedures governing the initiation and trial of criminal cases, emphasizing the significance of the term "case instituted upon complaint." It highlights that the word "case" typically refers to a proceeding resulting in the discharge, conviction, or acquittal of an accused person, with "instituted" indicating the initiation of proceedings based on a complaint disclosing the commission of an offense. Moreover, the judgment scrutinizes the specific circumstances of the case where the police initially charged two respondents, prompting Bhimappa to file a complaint against all three respondents. The Court observes that the cases remained distinct throughout the trial process, with separate charges and trial proceedings, leading to individual acquittals for each case. The Court overturns the High Court's decision on the appellant's locus standi, asserting that Bhimappa had the right to seek special leave under Section 417(3) as his case was instituted upon his complaint. It clarifies that the revision application's outcome did not affect Bhimappa's statutory right to move the High Court for special leave, emphasizing the preservation of his entitlement to a hearing on the petition. In conclusion, the Court sets aside the High Court's order and remits the case for the High Court's reconsideration of Bhimappa's petition for special leave under Section 417(3), emphasizing the importance of upholding the complainant's right to appeal against an acquittal in cases initiated through a complaint.
|
