MOTI LAL SONGARA versus PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 16-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 496 
MOTi LAL SONGARA 
v. 
PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 2013) 
MAY 16, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.190(1)(b) - Orde 
of Magistrate taking cognizance against accused-responder' 
C no. 1 - Held: On facts, cannot be found fault with - Thi 
Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of facts brought ft 
his notice by the appellant-informant and, therefore, he, ir 
fact, exercised power uls.190(1)(b) CrPC - Penal Code, 186C 
- SS. 307, 323, 324 & 341. 
D 
Criminal Trial - Suppression of fact by accused - Fraud 
on Court - Cognizance of offences by Magistrate - Charges 
framed by Sessions Judge - Order of quashment of summons 
obtained by fjccused-respondent no. 1 from another Sessions 
E Judge hearin,g revision against the order of the Magistrate by 
calculated concealment of facts - Held: Though respondent 
no. 1 was fully aware about the fact that charges had been 
framed against him by the Sessions Judge, yet he did not 
bring the same to the notice of the other Sessions Judge 
hearing revision against the order of the Magistrate taking 
F cognizance - As the order of quashment of summons was 
obtained by practising fraud and suppressing material fact 
before a court of law to gain advantage, power u/Artic/e 142 
of the Constitution invoked to do complete justice between the 
parties - Order of quashment of summons accordingly set 
G aside - Order framing charges restored - Trial directed to 
continue - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 307, 323, 324 & 341 -
Maxims - "supressio veri, expression faisi'' - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Art. 142. 
H 
496 
MOTi LAL SONGARA v. PREM PRAKASH @ PAPPU 497 
AND ANR. 
The appellant lodged FIR, on the basis of which 
A 
charge sheet was placed against one 'S'. Subsequently, 
the appellant filed application before the Magistrate, 
asseverating that respondent no.1, who had attacked his 
son with knife had not been made an accused. By order 
dated 19-11-2008, the Magistrate took cognizance against 
B 
respondent no.1 and summoned him. Accordingly, both 
'S' and respondent no.1, were sent up for sessions trial. 
The Sessions Judge, No. 3 by order dated 27-7-2009, 
framed charges against respondent no.1. 
Respondent no.1 challenged order dated 19-11-2008 c 
of the Magistrate in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009 
before Sessions Judge, No. 1, without bringing to its 
notice the order dated 27-7-2009 passed by Sessions 
Judge, No. 3. The Sessions Judge, No. 1 by order dated 
0 
14-10-2009 set aside the order of the Magistrate. 
Subsequently, respondent no.1 filed applic~tion 
seeking discharge. The trial Judge declined to discharge 
respondent no.1. He preferred Criminal Revision No. 327 
of 2011 before the High Court which quashed the charges 
E 
framed against him for the offences punishable under 
Sections 323, 324 and 307 IPC on the foundation that the 
order dated 19-11-2008 passed by the Magistrate taking 
cognizance and issuing summons had already been set 
aside by the revisional Court i.e. Sessions Judge, No. 1, 
F 
in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 2009.The High Court held 
that when the order dated 14-10-2009 passed by Sessions 
Judge No.1 setting aside the order taking cognizance 
was not challenged, the very basis of the continuance of 
the proceeding had become extinct and, therefore, the 
G 
order of framing of charges could not be sustained. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
respondent no.1 had not approached the court with clean 
hands and the High Court should not have interfered with 
the order of trial Judge declining to discharge respondent 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A no.1. Per contra, respondent No. 1 contended that once 
the order taking cognizance had gone unchallenged, it 
was obligatory on the part of the High Court to direct a 
discharge; and that apart, the Magistrate could not have 
taken cQgnizance in exercise of power under Section 190 
B CrPC. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The order of Magistrate taking cognizance 
against the first respondent cannot be found fault with. 
C The Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of facts 
brought to his notice by the appellant-informant and, 
therefore, he has, in fact, exercised the power under 
Section 190(1){b) CrPC. [Para 17] [509-D-E] 
0 
Mis. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and 
another (1989) 2 SCC 132: 1989 (1) SCR 718 and Uma 
Shankar Singh v. State of 

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