9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of quashing charge under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a question of whether the High Court erred in quashing the charge framed under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents by the Sessions Judge. The police investigation led to charges being framed against the respondents under Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 304/34 IPC. The High Court, in response to a revision petition, directed the Sessions Judge to first record medical evidence and exempted the accused from personal appearance until then. Subsequently, the accused sought discharge, which was denied, leading to an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge, which was granted by the High Court. The State appealed this decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the stage of framing a charge, the Court is not required to assess the sufficiency of evidence but only to ascertain if a prima facie case exists. Quashing a charge under Section 482 CrPC should only be done in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that the High Court's detailed examination of evidence and premature assessment were unwarranted. The Court reiterated that the trial must proceed without interference unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court referred to previous cases to emphasize that the High Court should not delve into detailed evidence or usurp the trial court's functions during the stage of framing charges. The Court held that the High Court's approach in evaluating medical evidence prematurely was erroneous and unsustainable. The High Court's decision to quash the charge against the respondents was deemed illegal, and the appeal was allowed. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its approach and premature assessment of evidence, emphasizing that the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial court to continue with the case as per legal procedures.
|
