LexMANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN versus RAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 289 MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL PODDAR AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1973 of 2010) OCTOBER 8, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: . A B s. 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Pursuant to a dowry C case filed against the complainant by his daughter-in-law, a raid was conducted in his house by police accompanied by accused who was brother of his daughter-in-law - Thereafter, complaint filed alleging that the accused forced the police officers to search cupboards for seizing the passporl of his sister and in the absence of complainant stole two gold D bangles - On the basis of the complaint and verification statement of the complainant, magistrate took cognizance of offence punishable u/s.379 /PC - Revision filed by accused but withdrawn later- Petition uls.482 filed by accused- High Courl dismissed the petition holding that it was powerless and E the only remedy available with the accused was to again go before the revisional courl and get the matter restored - On appeal, held: The complaint deserved to be quashed because prima facie it was absurd and there was a whole lack of the bona fides on the parl of the complainant - High Courl F ought to have applied its mind to the fact situation - The complaint was wholly covered by the category (7) of the illustrative parameters enumerated in Bhajan Lat's case - High Courl is invested with the tremendous powers u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. to pass any order in the interest of justice - Therefore, G it should have looked into the a/legations with open mind and passed order in the interest of justice. s. 482 - Scope of - Held: s. 482 is a guarantee against 289 H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 12 S.C.R. A injustice - High Court while exercising its jurisdiction u/s. 482 could pass any order in the interest of justice - This power is available only to the High Court in contradistinction to the power of Sessions Judge uls. 397. The sister of the appellant was allegedly harassed by 8 her in-laws for dowry. A complaint was filed by her under Section 498-A IPC against respondent no.1 who was her father-in-law. Respondent no.1 was arrested. The next day, he was released on bail. In pursuance of the said complaint, the police officers went to the matrimonial C home of appellant's sister for investigation. The appellant was also present there. The police conducted a raid in her matrimonial/home on 14.7.2004. On 17.7.2004, a written complaint was filed by respondent no.1 alleging that the appellant had stolen some gold ornaments D during that raid. In the verification statement recorded by respondent No. 1, he had stated that the appellant had come to his house with the police officers in connection with the criminal prosecution instituted by his sister and forced the police officers to take search of the cupboards E for seizing the passport of his sister. The appellant asked respondent no. 1 for the key of the cupboard and opened the cupboard and in the absence of respondent no. 1, stole two gold bangles weighing 60 grams. The appellant/ accused locked the cupboard and handed over the keys F to the respondent no. 1 who kept the same in his pocket and thereafter, he was arrested and taken to Rajasthan. On that basis, it was stated that it was the appellant/ accused alone who had stolen the gold bangles, which fact probably came to the notice of respondent No. 1 only G after coming back to his house. On the basis of the complaint and the verification statement of respondent no. 1, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and the process was issued. He then filed revision application challenging the issuance H of process. However, he withdrew the same later. The MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL 291 PODDAR AND ANR. appellant filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A challenging the whole proceedings. The High Court, however, dismissed his petition holding that the only remedy left for the appellant was to go again before the Sessions Judge and get the matter restored. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The only material on the basis of which the Magistrate issued the summons was the complaint and the verification statement. There were .no other c allegations. On the face of it, the allegations were absurd and without an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.