9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary Objection on Locus Standi 2. Denial of Opportunity to be Heard 3. Transfer of Case 4. High Court's Appraisal of Evidence and Quashing of Charges Summary: 1. Preliminary Objection on Locus Standi: The respondent's counsel argued that the appellant had no locus to file the appeal since the original complainant had expired and the appellant had a personal grievance against the respondent. The Supreme Court rejected this objection, referencing the judgment in *PSR Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam* (1980) 3 SCC 141, which allows for a wider connotation to the expression 'standing' under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Court found the allegations against the respondent serious and in the larger public interest, thus dismissing the preliminary objection. 2. Denial of Opportunity to be Heard: The High Court had quashed the charges on the ground that the respondent was denied an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court found that the respondent was given adequate hearing and that her application for change of counsel at the penultimate stage was a tactic to delay proceedings. The Court referenced *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi* (2005) 1 SCC 568 and *Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan* (2001) 9 SCC 631, emphasizing that the trial court only needs to determine if a prima facie case exists. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no violation of Section 303 of the Code or Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 3. Transfer of Case: The High Court transferred the case from the Special Judge, Chamba to the Special Judge, Kangra based on the respondent's apprehension of not getting a fair trial. The Supreme Court found this apprehension baseless and noted that such transfers should not be ordered without strong, concrete material. The Court emphasized that the Special Judge had conducted the proceedings fairly and that the transfer was unwarranted. 4. High Court's Appraisal of Evidence and Quashing of Charges: The Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by appraising the evidence and concluding there was no prima facie case against the respondent. The High Court's judgment was found to be tainted with legal infirmities, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court reiterated that the trial court should decide whether the evidence is sufficient to frame charges and that the High Court's opinion could unduly influence the trial court. The Court also criticized the High Court for quashing charges against all accused without such a prayer being made. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, confirmed the Special Judge, Chamba's order framing charges dated 4.1.2005, and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law, ensuring that any observations made by the Supreme Court are treated as prima facie. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
