AMANULLAH AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 12-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. I 027 
AMANULLAH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 299 of2016) 
APRIL 12, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of 
cognizance order - Appeal against, maintainability - Murder of 
woman - FIR by husband of victim-deceased alleging that murder 
was committed by appellant no. 2 and another person - During 
investigation, witnesses deposed before CJM that the husband of 
deceased killed the deceased - Charge sheet against 4 persons -
After filing of charge sheet, husband started harassing the witnesses 
- With a view to threaten, he went to the house of appellant no. I 
with pistol and dagger - FIR was lodged against him under Arms 
Act - Supplementary charge sheet filed against husband and other 
accused persons - CJM took cognizance of offence against them -
Petition filed uls.482 for quashing cognizance order - High Court 
quashed the cognizance order - Appeal against - Whether 
maintainable and whether High court exceeded its jurisdiction while 
exercising inherent power uls.482 - Held: The material placed on 
record revealed that the CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged 
against the accused-persons after perusal of case diary, chargesheei 
and other material placed before the court - The cognizance was 
taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused-
persons - The evidence collected by the I. 0. by recording the 
statement of prosecution witnesses a/ongwith the chargesheet was 
duly considered by the CJM before taking cognizance and, therefore, 
the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court in 
exercise of its inherent power uls.482 - Further, High Court failed 
to take into consideration another important aspect that the case at 
hand related to the grave offence of murder and that the criminal 
proceedings related thereto should not lightly be interfered with. 
Criminal law: Cognizance of offence - Duty of court at the 
stage of taking cognizance of offence - Held: At the stage of taking 
cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case 
made out by the police, in the chargesheet filed by them, with a view 
1027 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1028 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case 
- At this stage, the courts duty is limited to the extent of finding out 
whether from the material placed before it, offence alleged therein 
against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further 
with the case. 
locus slandi of a person tu 111uve cuurt in cri111inal cuse -
Power to allow third party to maintain appeal - Held: It is the duty 
of the State to get the culprit booked for the offence commilled by 
him - The Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having 
bonafide connection with the matter. to maintain the appeal with a 
view to advance substantial justice -· Ho11•ever, this power of 
allowing a third party to maintain an appeal should be exercised 
with due care and caution -
Persons, unconnected with the matter 
under consideration or having personal grievance against the 
accused should be checked. 
Words and phrases: Locus stamli - Meaning of - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under 
Section 482 of the CrPC. It has erred in quashing the cognizance 
order passed by the CJM without appreciating the material placed 
before it in correct perspective. The High Court ignored certain 
important facts, namely, that on 17.10.2008, appellant no.1 was 
allegedly threatened by the accused for which FIR was registered 
against him for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 26 of 
the Arms Act, 1959. Further, there were statements of various 
witnesses made under Section 164 of the CrPC, before a judicial 
magistrate, to the effect that the deceased was murdered by none 
other than her husband. The evidence collected by the 1.0. by 
recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, filed alongwith 
the chargeshcet was duly considered by the CJM before taking 
cognizance and therefore, the same should not have been 
interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power 
under Section 482 of the CrPC. Further, the High Court failed to 
take into consideration another important aspect that the case at 
hand related to the grave offence of murder and that the criminal 
proceeding

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.