LexAMOD KUMAR KANTH versus ASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 669 [2023] 6 S.C.R. 669 669 AMOD KUMAR KANTH v. ASSOCIATION OF VICTIM OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017) APRIL 20, 2023 [K. M. JOSEPH, B.V. NAGARATHNA AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 –Ambit of – Uphaar Tragedy case – Closure report filed by the CBI against the appellant was rejected by the Magistrate,who instead took cognizance on the protest petition filed by the first respondent and issued summons against the appellant – Cognizance was taken for offences u/ss.304A, 337, 338, IPC and u/s.14, Cinematograph Act r/w the Rules – Appellant filed petition u/s.482, CrPC challenging the order issuing summons – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When considering the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction and thereby s.197 being flouted it is not to be conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether an offence has been committed – The salutary purpose behind s.197 is protection being accorded to public servants – The most important question which must be posed and answered by the Court when dealing with the argument that sanction is not forthcoming is whether the officer was acting in the exercise of his official duties – Even an officer who acts in the purported exercise of his official power is given the protection u/s.197– In the present case, having regard to the admitted facts, it cannot be said that the appellant was not acting in the discharge of his official functions –The subtle and nuanced distinction between the question as to whether the offence has been committed and if an offence has been committed, whether a sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant who is alleged to have committed the same, must not be lost sight of – Magistrate and the High Court overlooked this distinction – Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the appellant contrary to the demands of s.197 –Impugned order set aside –Proceedings challenged in s.482 stand quashed–Penal Code, 1860– ss.304A, 337, 338 – Cinematograph Act, 1952 – s.14. A B C D E F G H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695 : [2020] 6 SCR 453; Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2021) 8 SCC 768; State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289; Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 500 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 747; Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab, (2016) 8 SCC 722 : [2016] 5 SCR 653; Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 12 SCC 87 : [2016] 6 SCR 295; Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI 2014 (6) SCC 173 : [2014] 9 SCR 571; Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 974; MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. (2011) 14 SCC 481: [2011] 16 SCR 1 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2020] 6 SCR 453 referred to Para 5 [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 referred to Para 7 [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 747 referred to Para 13 [2016] 5 SCR 653 referred to Para 14 [2016] 6 SCR 295 referred to Para 15 [2014] 9 SCR 571 referred to Para 16, 29 [2011] 16 SCR 1 referred to Para 32 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1359 of 2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2013 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLM No.2746 of 2010. R. Basant, Mathai M Paikaday, Sr. Advs., Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Biji Rajesh, A.K. Singh, Ms. Mohini Priya, Akshay Sahay, Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Ms. Vasudha Jain, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Sajjan Singh Nahar, Sanjay Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G., KTS Tulsi, Sr. Adv., Sukant Vikram, Aditya Pratap Singh, Mrs. Pallavi Malhotra, A B C D E F G H 671 Avish Bhati, T A Khan, B K Satija, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Shantnu Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Shailesh Madiyal, Veer Vikrant Singh, Indira Bhakar, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for the Respondents. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : JUDGMENT (1) By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity). The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the closure report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.