9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1467 - SC - Indian LawsValidity of criminal proceedings - whether in a case where cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the case is committed to the learned Special Court, whether entire criminal proceedings can be said to have been vitiated considering the second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act which was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016? - HELD THAT - There was apparently political rivalry between the Petitioner No.1 and Devendra Aggarwal. However, Complaint Case No. 19/2018 has not been lodged against the Petitioners, by Devendra Aggarwal, but by the Respondent No.2, a Dhobi by caste, which is a scheduled caste. It cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out offence under the Atrocities Act. It is specifically alleged that the Petitioners had abused the Respondent No.2 in filthy language by reference to his caste. The allegations in the Complaint Case No.19 of 2018, if established, could result in conviction under the relevant subsections of Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act. The fact that the complaint may have been initiated by reason of political vendetta is not in itself ground for quashing the criminal proceedings - It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant. The criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings - Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Documents have been brought on record by the Petitioners which show that the Petitioner No.1 is a patient of lung cancer of an advanced stage. He is on strong medication. Considering the condition of the health of the Petitioner No.1, the Trial Court may consider exempting the personal appearance of the Petitioner No.1, if such an application is made to the Trial Court. SLP dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge to take cognizance of the offence. 2. Allegations of malicious prosecution and political vendetta. 3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). 4. Examination of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge to take cognizance of the offence: The petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hathras, to take cognizance of the offence in Complaint Case No.19/2018. Emphasizing Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, the petitioners argued that only the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act was competent to pass an order for issuance of summons. However, it was clarified that the second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, inserted by Act 1 of 2016, allows the Special Court to directly take cognizance of offences under the Act. The Supreme Court, referencing the case of Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors., concluded that the Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Court No.4 Hathras, had jurisdiction to take cognizance or issue summons/orders. 2. Allegations of malicious prosecution and political vendetta: The petitioners alleged that the case was a classic example of malicious prosecution due to political animosity. It was contended that the complaint was filed by the Respondent No.2 at the behest of a political opponent. However, the Court noted that the complaint was lodged by Respondent No.2, a member of a scheduled caste, and not directly by the political opponent. The allegations in the complaint, if proven, could result in conviction under the relevant subsections of Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act. The Court held that the possibility of political vendetta did not justify quashing the criminal proceedings at the inception. 3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. provides the High Court with inherent powers to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The Court referenced various judgments, including Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P., Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, and Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, to illustrate the circumstances under which the High Court might exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. 4. Examination of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: The Court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised with caution and only when justified by the specific tests laid down in the section itself. The Court cited several cases, including State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh and Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttrakhand, to highlight the principles guiding the exercise of inherent powers. The Court concluded that the fact that the complaint may have been initiated due to political vendetta was not sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The allegations in the complaint constituted an offence under the Atrocities Act, and whether they were true or untrue would have to be decided in the trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the criminal proceedings could not be nipped in the bud merely because the complaint was lodged by a political rival. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint constituted an offence under the Atrocities Act, and the trial would determine their veracity. The special leave petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the Trial Court might consider exempting the personal appearance of Petitioner No.1, given his advanced stage of lung cancer.
|
