Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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