2017 (1) TMI 1829 - SC - Indian Laws

Interference with the process issued against the accused Respondents on the private complaint filed by the wife of the deceased Bapu Nivrutti Gund - Probity of evidence - HELD THAT - The High Court in the impugned judgment seems to have embarked on a virtual trial of the case though it was entertaining an application Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure/Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order taking cognizance and the complaint as a whole. The probity of the evidence tendered by the complainant's witnesses prior to issuance of process was even gone into by the High Court. Having regard to the settled principles of law, the approach of the High Court not considered to be correct in law. At the stage at which the case was poised for consideration, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to have embarked upon the exercise that was undertaken. As the same appears to be in clear excess of jurisdiction, the order of the High Court is set aside and it is directed that the complaint proceedings against the accused Respondents be continued from the stage where the same was interdicted. The order of High Court set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against High Court order interfering with process issued against accused Respondents based on private complaint filed by deceased's wife.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the Counsel for the Appellant as no one appeared on behalf of the Respondents despite notice being served. The appeal challenged the High Court's order dated 24th December, 2014, which interfered with the process issued against the accused Respondents based on a private complaint by the deceased's wife. The Investigating Agency had submitted a final report citing insufficient evidence to implicate the accused Respondents. The complaint was filed after this report, and cognizance was taken only after examining seven witnesses. The High Court, in its judgment, conducted a virtual trial of the case while entertaining an application for quashing the order taking cognizance. The High Court even scrutinized the probity of evidence presented by the complainant's witnesses before the process was issued.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to be incorrect in law, stating that at the stage of consideration, the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into the evidence presented. The Supreme Court held that such an exercise was beyond the High Court's purview and set aside its order. The Supreme Court directed that the complaint proceedings against the accused Respondents should continue from the stage where they were interrupted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was overturned.