M/S J.K. INTERNATIONAL versus STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 23-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MIS J.K. INTERNATIONAL 
v. 
STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELID AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY23, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, RP. SETIDANDB.N.AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 173, 301, 302 and 435. 
.> 
Criminal proceedings-Prosecution of-Complainant-1mpleadment of-
Complainant alleged breach of trust and cheating against accused-Charge 
sheet filed-Accused filed petition in High Court for quashing of criminal 
proceedings-But High Court refused to implead the complainant as a party-
Correctness of-Held: The genesis in almost all criminal cases is the grievance 
of the complainant that he is wronged by the accused-Hence, an aggrieved 
private person cannot be altogether eclip3ed from criminal proceedings-
Magistrate is duty-bound to hear such person-High Court directed to dispose 
of the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings after affording reasonable 
opportunity to the complainant. 
The appellant filed a complaint before the police alleging the re-
spondents 2 and 3 committed offences of criminal breach of trust and 
cheating. A charge sheet was filed against the said respondents, and they 
filed a writ petition btfore the High Court for quashing of the charge 
sheet. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court for impleading 
the appellant as a party in that writ petition. The High Court dismissed the 
appellant's petition on the ground that the right of the complainant to be 
heard ceased once, cognizance was taken and he could not thereafter 
continue to participate in the proceedings as if he were the aggrieved 
party who must have his say in the proceedings. Hence this appeal. 
Allo'\\ing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. An aggrieved private person is not altogether to be 
eclipsed from the scenario when the criminal court takes cognizance of the 
offences based on the report submitted by the police. The reality cannot be 
overlooked that the genesis in almost all such cases is the grievance of one 
or more individual that they were wronged by the accused by committing 
offences against them. (95-G] 
90 
-
l.K. INTERNATIONAL v. STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [THOMAS, J .] 91 
Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar, Affi (1966) SC 911, held inapplicable. 
A 
-· 
~ 
2. There is no obligation on the Magistrate to issue notice to the 
iajured person or to a relative of the deceased. But in order to provide him 
with an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the final 
report of the police (except when the final report is to the effect that no 
offence had been made out in the case) the informant who lodged the FIR 
B 
is entitled to a notice from the Magistrate. In other instances, the iajured 
or any relative of the accused can appear before the Magistrate at the time 
of consideration of the police report if such person otherwise comes 
to know that the Magistrate is going to consider the report. If such 
person appears before the Magistrate it is the duty of the Magistrate to c 
hear him. (96-D-EJ 
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985] 2 SCC 537, relied 
on. 
3. The petition filed by the respondents for quashing the criminal pro-
D 
ceedings can now be disposed of by the High Court after affording a reasonable 
opportunity to the appellant also to be heard in the matter. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 222 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.2000 of the Delhi High Court 
E 
in Cr!. M. No. 3715/2000 in Cr!. M. (Main) No. 2672 of 2000. 
Ashok H. Desai, S.S. Gandhi, Anoop Bagai, Arnn K. Sinha and Rakesh 
Singh for the Appellant. 
Jaspal Singh, C. Mukhopadhya, Mani'h Kumar and V. Krishna Murthy 
F 
for the Respondent No. 3. 
Rakesh K. Sharma for the Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
... 
G 
TIIOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
The grievance of the appellant is simple and apparently innocuous that 
he too may be heard by the court. But the High Court rolled down the shutters 
before him saying he has no right to be heard and the court has no power to 
permit him to be heard. As his grievance was compounded by such denial he 
H 
has filed this appeal by special leave. 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
A person accused of certain offences moved the High Court of Delhi for 
quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him in a Magistrate's court. 
. -· 
Appellant informed the High Court tllat the criminal proceedings were initiated 
... 
at his behest and hence he too may be heard before t

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