CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

High Court Should be careful while quashed criminal proceedings – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court observed in the recent judgement while hearing appeal against quashing order (Satish Kumar Jatav vs State of UP DD. 17th May 2022) that, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, non­speaking order.  We find no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused.   

Facts - Appellant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused persons, as the local police did not lodge the FIR.  Thereafter Magistrate passed an order directing to lodge the FIR against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act. After Investigation submitted the closure report. 

Complainant was doubtful about a fair investigation and therefore, the complainant filed another Criminal Complaint Case No.2365 of 2004 against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 

Magistrate issued notice to the complainant after receiving the final report, complainant filed the Protest Petition against the final report.  Magistrate rejecting the final report.  The proceedings arising from the police final report was merged into the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case. 

The learned Magistrate directed for recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.  The complainant recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.  So also, the statement of other witnesses PW1 to PW7 were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 

The injury report of the complainant was also brought on record.  All the witnesses supported the prosecution case.  Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed a reasoned and detailed order vide order dated 04.02.2008 and directed to issue summons to the accused to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(10)(15) of the Act. 

Being aggrieved the respondents ­ original accused approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings. High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings, aggrieved Complainant approached the Supreme Court. 

Appellant Contended that that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused is a cryptic, non­reasoned order And Magistrate after due application of mind and considering the statements recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the material on record including the injury report had directed to issue summons upon the accused to face the trial, the same was not required to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 

Apex Court observed that Magistrate issued the summons against the accused after considering the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence on record including the injury certificate.

The same has been set aside by the High Court in a most cursory and casual manner.  The way the High Court has disposed of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings is not appreciated at all.   

Apex Court held that when serious allegations for the offences were made, the High Court ought to have been more cautious and circumspect while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashing the criminal proceedings for the serious offences. Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law. Appeal Allowed. 

D.D:- May 17, 2022. 

Satish Kumar Jatav Versus The State of U.P. & Ors.

Latest Legal News