LexMD. ALLAUDDIN KHAN versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. MD. ALLAUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019) APRIL 15, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Complaint u/ss. 327 And 379 r/w s. 34 IPC – Taken cognizance of, by the Judicial Magistrate – In petition u/s. 482, High Court quashed the complaint holding that prima facie case was not made out in view of pending civil dispute between the parties and that the statements of witnesses were contradictory – On appeal, held: In order to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused for taking cognizance, the Court is only required to see the allegations in the complaint – Such ascertainment cannot be done taking into account mere pendency of civil dispute – High Court also had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 482 – Therefore, High Court was not right in quashing the complaint. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 The High Court did not examine the case with a view to find out as to whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out the offences falling under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC or not. Instead the High Court gave importance to the fact that since there was a dispute pending between the parties in the Civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties. It is on this ground, the High Court proceeded to quash the complaint. This approach of the High Court is faulty. [Paras 10, 11, 12][879-D-F] State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 – relied on. 1.2 The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not. [Para 14][879-G-H] [2019] 5 S.C.R. 876 876 A B C D E F G H 877 1.3 In order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizance is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. [Para 15][880-B] 2. The High Court was also wrong in holding that there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence. The High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in the present case. [Para 17][880-C-D] 3. Therefore, the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not legally sustainable and hence it deservers to be set aside. [Para 18][880-E] Case Law Reference [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 13 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2019. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27078 of 2013. Binay Kumar Das, H. Hasibuddin, Ms. Priyanka Das, Advs. for the Appellant. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Jeewesh Prakash, Ms. Ritu Dubey, Shantanu Sagar, Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Ravi Bharuka, Ms. Sarvshree, Justine George, Aditya Singala, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in MD. ALLAUDDIN KHAN v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. A B C D E F G H 878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27078 of 2013 whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein and quashed the complaint filed by the appellant herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point. 4. By impugned order, the High Court quashed the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.