BAIKUNTH SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 15-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 561 
... 
BAIKUNTH SINGH 
A 
}I, 
-; 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 15, 2008 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA~ JJ.] 
.... 
~ 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Petition 
under - Manner of disposal - Challenge to - Pursuant to a c 
-
complaint, trial court took cognizance under s.406 /PC and 
issued summons against the accused - They filed petition 
under s.482 CrPC - Complainant impleaded as a party - High 
Court quashed the order of trial court without issuing notice 
to the complainant - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
D 
" 
Complainant was required to be heard - Parties directed to 
_._ 
appear before High Court on stipulated date without any further 
-
notice - Penal Code, 1860 - s.406. 
Pursuant to a complaint filed by the appellant, the trial 
court took cognizance under s.406, IPC and issued 
E 
summons against respondents 2 and 3. 
Respondents 2 and 3 filed petition under s.482 CrPC, 
impleading appellant as a party therein. The High Court 
came to a conclusion that the appellant might have filed 
the complaint case in order to pressurize the respondents 
F 
~ 
2 and 3 not to proceed with their cross-case against 
.... 
appellant under ss.3048, 201/34 IPC r/w ss.3 and 4 of 
Dowry Act and quashed the order passed by the trial 
court. 
The order passed by the High Court was primarily 
G 
challenged in the present appeal on the ground that it 
was passed without issuing notice to the appellant. It was 
-' ,... ) 
contended that the exercise of power u/s.482 CrPC was 
>....-
not warranted on the facts of the case. 
.....(, 
561 
H 
,_ 
A 
e 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court came to a conclusion which r " 
appears to have been more on presumptions and 
surmises that the case might have been filed to 
pressurize the respondents 2 and 3. There was no 
B material in this regard and in any event the stage for 
deciding that question had not arisen. It cannot be said 
to be a case where the complainant was not required to 
be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were .A 
initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the 
c appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272 
of 2002. In the circumstances, without expressing any 
opinion on the merits of the case, the parties are directed 
-
D 
to appear before the High Court on stipulated date 
without any further notice. [Paras 6, 7 and 8] [5~3-D-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2035 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 of the,.. 
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 9428 
of 2006. 
E 
Nagendra Rai, Anshul Raj, Shantanu Sagar, Abhishek 
F 
Anand and T. Mahipal for the Appellant. 
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Braj Kishore Mishra, 
Abhishek Jha, Vikram, Tansuhree Sinha, Ujjwal K. Jha and 
Aparna Jha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the 
-;-. 
G order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 
Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable under 
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') 
and issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos.t\ --.. 
2 and 3. The High Court exercised power under Section 482 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cod~). 
H The High Court was of the view that the case might have been 
1-
f 
-
-
BAIKUNTH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
563 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the petitioners 
A 
before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was 
lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 
4 of Dowry Act against the complainant and others. 
3. Various points were urged in support of the appeal. 
Primarily it was submitted that the petition was disposed of 
B 
without issuing notice to the complainant. It is submitted that 
the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code was not 
warranted on the facts of the case. 
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported 
the order of the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on 
C 
the other hand supported the stand of the appellant. 
5. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was 
impleaded as a party in Criminal Miscellaneous No.94

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