MANOJ NARAIN AGRAWAL versus SHASHI AGRAWAL

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 976 
... 
' ' 
A 
MANOJ NARAIN AGRAWAL 
II. 
SHASHIAGRAWAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 725 of 2009 
-
B 
APRIL 15, 2009 
~ 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - High Court 
dismissed petition under s.482 - While doing so, High Court 
c observed that valid grounds existed for granting bail to 
~
accused and directed the Magistrate to dispose of bail 
applications of the accused the same day they are filed and 
also issued a further direction which for all intent and purport 
exempted the accused from personal appearance before the 
D Magistrate - Directions passed by High Court while exercising 
~ 
jurisdiction under s.482 - Challenge to - Held: High Court 
erred in issuing the impugned directions - Penal Code, 1860 
- ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506. 
E 
FIR was lodged making two principal allegations, viz., 
(a) overt acts on the part of the accused as a result 
whereof the complainant suffered grievous injuries; and 
(b) forgery of documents on basis whereof some orders 
were obtained by the accused in getting their names 
mutated in the revenue record. Consequently the 
~ ' 
F accused were charge-sheeted under ss.147, 148, 149, 
307, 504 and 506 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance of 
the said offence and issued summons to the accused. 
The accused filed petition under s.482 CrPC for quashing 
. 
of the said criminal proceedings. The High Court declined 
G to interfere and dismissed the petition under s.482 CrPC. 
However while doing so, the High Court observed that 
'-( 
~ 
valid grounds existed for granting bail to the accused and 
directed the Magistrate to dispose of bail applications of 
the accused the same day they are filed and also issued 
H 
976 
) 
MANOJ NARAIN AGRAWAL v. SHASHI AGRAWAL 977 
a further direction which for all intent and purport A 
exempted the accused from personal appearance before 
the Magistrate. The said directions are impugned in the 
present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The jurisdiction of the High Court to 
quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its jurisdiction 
under s.482 CrPC is limited. It can interfere with an order 
of summoning an accused by the Magistrate inter alia in 
the event if a finding is arrived at that the accused were c 
being prosecuted ma/a fide and/or even if the allegations 
contained in the FIR are given face value and taken to be 
correct in their entirety, no case has been made out for 
~· 
taking cognizance of the offence. [Para 26) [992-D-E] 
D 
1.2. It is ordinarily for the Magistrate to consider as 
to whether a case for grant of bail has been made out or 
not, the High Court, therefore, may not be correct in 
observing, "I am quite convinced that valid grounds exist 
for granting bail to the petitioners." Similarly, the High E 
Court should not have, for all intent and purport, issued 
the direction for grant of exemption from personal 
appearance. Such a matter undoubtedly shall be left for 
the consideration before the Magistrate. The impugned 
~· 
directions are set aside and the matters are remitted to 
the High Court for consideration of the application filed 
F 
before it by the parties afresh on merit. [Para 31) [994-G-
H; 995-A-B] 
Kam/apati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal (1980) 2 SCC 
91; Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 G 
)', 
SCC 322; State of Andra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter(2008) 2 SCC 
383; Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata 
Vishwanandha Maharaj (1999) 5 SCC 740; Arun Shankar 
Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 146; Hamida 
v . .Rashid alias Rasheed & ors. (2008) 1 SCC 47 4; State of H 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 5 S.C.R. 
~ 
A Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 
335 and Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (2005) 
3 sec 299, referred to 
Case Law Reference: 
-
B 
(1980) 2 sec 91 
referred to 
Para 20 
1 
(1979) 2 sec 322 
referred to 
Para 22 
(2008) 2 sec 383 
referred to 
Para 22 
c 
(1999) 5 sec 740 
referred to 
Para 23 
,,.__
( 
(1999) s sec 146 
referred to 
Para 25 
(2008) 1 sec 47 4 
referred to 
Para 25 
~ 
1!192 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 referred to 
Para 27 
D 
~ 
(2005) 3 sec 299 
referred to 
Para 28 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 725 of 2009. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2008 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application 
No. 620/2006. 
WITH 
.( 
I 
F 
Criminal Appeal No. 726-727/2009, 728-729

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