Section 482 Cr.P.C :Recent Supreme Court Judgments

Petition For Quashing FIR Can Be Entertained Even If Charge sheet Is Filed During Its PendencyIn Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) Supreme Court held that High Courts can entertain a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR, even if the charge sheet is filed during the pendency of that petition."There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending 2 (2011) 7 SCC 59 7 with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court." HC Cannot Examine Mens Rea Aspect Before Completion Of Investigation In Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat Supreme Court held that before an investigation is complete, a high court, in a petition filed by the accused under Section 482 CrPC, could not go into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the accused. "At this juncture when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the respondent." Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant And Accused Not A Ground To Quash Criminal CaseIn Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar. Supreme Court re-iterated that mere pendency of a civil case between complainant and accused is not a reason to quash criminal case. "The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not. The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C In Md. Allauddin Khan vs The State Of Bihar Supreme Court held that High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. HC Can't Act Like An Investigating Agency While Exercising Inherent Powers Under S.482 CrPCSupreme Court, in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v State of Gujarat, observed that the high court, while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code , in order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offence or not, cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can it exercise powers like an appellate court. "In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof." HC Should Assign Reasons As To Why A Petition Under Section 482 Is Allowed Or RejectedSupreme Court in Jitender Kumar @ Jitender Singh vs. State of Bihar has once again made it clear that it is obligatory for the High Court to assign the reasons as to why a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is allowed or rejected. "Time and again, this Court has emphasized the necessity of giving reasons in support of the conclusion because it is the reason, which indicates the application of mind. It is, therefore,...

Section 482 Cr.P.C :Recent Supreme Court Judgments

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORKS

Tags