MINAKSHI BALA SUDHIR KUMAR AND ORS. versus SUDHIR KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1008 · Decided: 10-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL, M.K. MUKHERJEE

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MJNAKSHI BALA 
SUDHIR KUMAR AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 239, 240 and 48J-Lodging 
of FIR-Charges framed on a finding that prima facie case made 
out-Revisional Jurisdiction-High Cowt il!fe1fering and quashing FIR relying 
on documents other than those ref med to in Ss.239 and 240-Also dealing 
with rival contentions and going into 1ne1its of the case-Held : An1ounts to 
usu1ping power of Ilia/ Court and hence not justified. 
Appellant lodged a first Information Report alleging commission of 
offences under sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, by her 
D husband, parents in-law and four other members of her husband's family. 
Police registered the case and after investigation charge sheeted all of 
them. All the accused except the appellant's husband approached the High 
Court for quashing the FIR. In the meantime the trial Court framed 
charges and f1Xed a date for recording of Prosecution evidence. However, 
E before the evidence could be recorded, the High Court quashed the entire 
-proceedings. Hence these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The entire approach o~ the High Court in dealing with the 
F 
matter is patently wrong and opposed to settled principles of law. The 
petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed in the High Court at a stage 
when the police has already submitted charge sheet on completion of 
investigation and when the petition came up for hearing a competent Court 
had not only taken cognisance thereupon but framed charges also. Inspite 
G thereof, the High Court, surprisingly enough, proceeded to deal with the 
matter as if it was called upon to decide whether the F.I.R. disclosed any 
offence and, for that matter, whether investigation should be permitted to 
continue. (1010-F, G] 
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors., AIR 
H (1982) SC 949, distinguished. 
1008 
MINAKSHJ v. S. KUM,\IZ I ~1.K. MUKHERJEE. J.] 
1009 
2. If charges are framed in ;.1ccorclance with Section 240 Cr. P.C. on A 
a finding that a p1inia facic case has ht'en made out • as has been done in 
the instant case - the person arraigned n1ay, if he feels aggrieved, invoked 
the revisional Jurisdiction of the Hig:h Court or the Sessions Court to 
contend that the charge sheet submitted under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and 
documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had B 
committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional Court if 
so satisfied can quash the charges frames against him. Once charges are 
framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. the High Court in its revisional juris-
-...-
diction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those 
referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr. P.C.; nor would it be justified in 
invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the C 
same except in those r~re cases where forensic exigencies and formidable 
compulsions justify such a course. Even in such exceptional cases the High 
Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and 
---.-
can be legally translated into relevant evidence. 
3. In the instant case, instead of adverting to and confining its D 
attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C. the 
High Court has dealt with the rival contentions or the parties raised 
through their respective affidavits at length and on a threadbare discus-
sion thereof passed the order quashing the FIR. The Course so adopted 
cannot be supported because finding regarding commission of an offence E 
cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence, and at the stage of 
framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the £unctions of a trial court to 
delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the case. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 333-
™ 
~~ 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.92 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 8184-M & 14917 of 1991. 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellant. 
U.R. Lalit, Muni Lal Verma, Seeraj Bagga and Ms. Surestha Bagga 
for the Respondents. 
The following .J udgmcnt of the Court was delivered by 
G 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted. Heard the learned H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
fl 
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 3 S.C.R. 
counsel appearing for the parties. 
On September 24, 1990 the appellant lodged a first information 
report (FIR) with the Ci\11 Lines Police Station, Ludhi

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