9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er directing issue of process and also the quashing of proceedings pending in the court below. The revision which was filed in the High Court was filed under Sections 397 and 401. In addition to the State Government, the petitioners joined respondent No. 2, the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka and also respondent No. 3, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri Ramakrishna Hegde. 3. It is alleged that when the revision petition was filed in the High Court, it was heard for admission and was admitted and orders were passed for issue of notices to the respondents. But by the impugned order the High Court directed deletion of the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 holding that they are not necessary parties to the proceedings and it is against this order that the special leave was filed and hence this appeal. 4. The order of the High Court indicates that the matter was taken up on being mentioned by either of the counsel in the matter as it reads: This CRP coming on for being spoken to the Court made the following order: Respondents 2 and 3 in this petition, who are not parties to the complaint, are not necessary parties to the proceedings. Hence, Respondents 2 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n petition the contention advanced by the petitioners is that this prosecution was instituted by sanction from the State Govt. because the two respondents and the petitioner in this revision petition made allegations against the two respondents who have been deleted that it was necessary for them to join them as parties under Clause 2 of Section 401. It was further contended that in fact the news item and the allegation which form the basis of the complaint pertain to these two persons. In fact not about the Chief Minister himself but about his wife and in this aspect of the matter it was contended that these two were necessary parties before the High Court and it was for this reason that the petitioners joined them in the High Court. learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Thakur Ram v. The State of Bihar 1966CriLJ700 and it was contended that the Court below was not right in deleting these two respondents. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka frankly stated that so far as the two respondents' continuance or discontinuance from the criminal revision is concerned the State of Karnataka is not interested an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered by series of decisions of this Court, the above noted case being one and contended that in the light of law laid down, no grievance could be made against the order of the High Court. 9. It was also contended that even if the petitioners have chosen to make allegations against respondents 2 and 3 as any one is free to make allegations, it does not call for any enquiry before the High Court as the High Court is not expected to enquire into the allegations and counter-allegations while it is only examining in revision the order issued by the trial court which is nothing more but issue of process and that order the trial court has passed on the basis of complaint and papers filed along with the complaint and the High Court only is expected to see as to whether on these papers and complaint the Court below was right in issuing process and it is a proceeding which deserves to continue or it could be quashed; except this while exercising provisional jurisdiction, according to the learned Counsel, High Court is not expected to go into the matter at all. And therefore the High Court was right in deleting the names of respondents 2 and 3. 397. Calling for records to exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the court below. learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the proceedings have been launched by the State Govt. on behalf of respondent No. 2 and therefore indirectly respondent No. 2 being the complainant is a party to the proceedings. That is too tall a proposition. The prosecution is launched by the State Government and before the court below i.e. the trial court the only parties are the petitioners who are accused persons and the State Govt. which stands in the place of a complainant. There are prosecution witnesses and there may even be defence witnesses. But the witnesses are not parties to the proceedings and admittedly these two respondents who have been deleted by the impugned order of the High Court were not parties before the court below. 12. learned Counsel laid much emphasis on the provisions contained in Sub-clause 2 of Section 401. Section 401 reads: 401. High Court's powers of revision.-(1) in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13. The decision to which reference was made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it appears has no bearing on the question. That was a case where the question before this Court was as to whether when a person was charged under Section 392 and was facing trial before the Court of a Magistrate, it was proper to send the case to the Sessions Court when such applications earlier to the Magistrate have been rejected and it is in this context the scope of the revisional jurisdiction was being examined. In our opinion, this case is of no consequence at all so far as the present case is concerned. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., (supra) this Court considered the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 397 in the context of challenge to the criminal proceedings or issue of process and this Court observed that: It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
