Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (9) TMI 691

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... #39;) had moved the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of an order of charge passed against the said petitioners. The circumstances under which the applicant has moved this application need to be stated in the first instance. 2. The applicant Smt. Madhu Bagga had filed a complaint against her husband and other relations under Section 498A/406/34 IPC. The charge sheet was framed against the accused persons. These accused persons included the applicant's husband, his two brothers and sisters. They filed revision petition against the order of framing of charge by the learned MM which was dismissed by the learned ASJ on 15.11.2003. 3. Feeling aggrieved, these accused persons had filed the aforesa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the MM had framed charge not only under Section 498A/34 but also under Section 406 IPC, and vide order dated 15.11.2003 charge under Section 406 IPC was only reiterated. Therefore, learned ASJ had rightly dismissed the revision petition as time barred counting the period of limitation from 18.7.2002. b.In the aforesaid petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the accused persons, the applicant was not made a party though she was an essential party and without hearing her, the said order has been passed. 6. I was taken through the order dated 18.7.2002 passed by the learned MM. The perusal thereof shows that the plea of the applicant is correct. By this order, charge was framed under Section 406 IPC as well. No doubt on 15.11.2003, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uarrel about the aforesaid proposition of law, however, this proposition of law would not be applicable in the facts of this case. The accused persons could not deny that in the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the charge which was framed on the complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant is a necessary party. 9. The Supreme Court has held, time and again, that without hearing the complainant, orders on such petition quashing charge, should not be passed. Thus, the order dated 18.11.2006 was passed without hearing the applicant. This order has adversely affected the applicant in as much as order of charge framed against the accused persons under Section 406 IPC has been set aside by the said order. 10. The Hon& .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Public Prosecutor is the only authority empowered to conduct the prosecution as per Section 225 of the Code, a private person who is aggrieved by the offence involved in the case is not altogether debarred from participating in the trial. This can be discerned from Section 301(2) of the Code. x-------x An aggrieved private person is not altogether to be eclipsed from the scenario when the criminal court takes cognizance of the offences based on the report submitted by the police. The reality cannot be overlooked that the genesis in almost all such cases is the grievance of one or more individual that they were wronged by the accused by committing offences against them. 11. In P. Sundarrajan v. R. Vidhya Sekar 2004 (13) SCC 472 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d for the Authority to take proceedings afresh according to law, i.e., in accordance with the said rule (audi alteram partem). (b) But in the latter case, the effect of violation (of a facet of the rule audi alteram partem) has to be examined from the standpoint of prejudice; in other words, what the Court or Tribunal has to see is whether in the totality of the circumstances, the delinquent officer/employee did or did not have a fair hearing and the orders to be made shall depend upon the answer to the said query. (It is made clear that this principle (No. 5) does not apply in the case of rule against bias, the test in which behalf are laid down elsewhere. 14. In Krishan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1995)IILLJ718SC it was laid dow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates