LexASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 382 A ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2009 B FEBRUARY 12, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: c ss. 482, 154 and 156 (2) - Criminal proceedings u/s 3 (1) (ix) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Quashed by High Court for non-mentioning of caste of accused in FIR - HELD: Question as to whether accused belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes D can be gone into during investigation - Order of High Court set aside - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes .. ,,_ (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- s. 3 (1) (ix) - 'Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - r.7. E The appellant filed an F.l.R. against respondent no.3 complaining commission of offences punishable u/s 3 (1) (ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Respondent no. 3 filed ~ a petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. before the High Court primarily F on the ground that the caste was not mentioned in the FIR and, therefore, the proceedings deserved to be quashed. The High Court allowed the petition. In the appeal filed by the complainant, it was G contended for the appellant that non-mentioning of caste of the accused in the FIR could not be a ground to quash ~ the proceedings. ~ Allowing the appeal, the Court H 382 ASHABAI MACHINDRAADHAGALE V. STATE OF 383 MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. HELD:· 1. The powers of by the High Court u/s 482 of A the Code of Criminl Procedure, 1973 are very wide, and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The High Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised s to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, c whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or 0 whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. [para 13-12] [ 392-8, C, D; 390-C, D] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Superintendent of Police, CBI and Ors. V Tapan Kumar Singh E 2003 (6) SCC 175; State of Orissa v. Saro} Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540; Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar AIR 2006 SC 1937; and R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 - referred to. 2. An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia. The F question as to whether the accused belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe can be gone into during investigation. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 prescribes that investigation has to be done by an officer G not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After ascertaining the facts during the course of investigation it is open to the investigating officer to record that the accused either belong to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. After final opinion is H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. Even if the charge sheet is filed, at the time of consideration of the charge it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that he does not belong to B scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Even if charge is framed, at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. [para 14-16] [492-E, F, G, H; 493-A, B] C Masumsha Hasanasha Musa/man v. State of D E F G Maharashtra 2000 (3) SCC 557; and Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (3) SCC 771 - referred to. Manohar S/o Martandrao Kulkarni and Anr. V State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 588 - overruled. Case Law Reference 2005 (4) Mh.L.J. 588 overruled para 5 1992 Supp (1) 335 referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.