LexN. MANOGAR & ANR. versus THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 685 : 2024 INSC 130 N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2024 16 February 2024 [Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the trial court whereunder, the trial court rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s. 216/319 CrPC seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants as accused persons in connection with the case u/ss. 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC. Headnotes Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 216/319 – Discretionary powers under – Exercise of, by the High Court – Application by the complainant u/s. 216/319 seeking the summoning of, and the impleadment of the appellants as accused persons in connection with the case u/ss. 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC – Rejected by the trial court, however, allowed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Trial court’s order was well reasoned and did not suffer from any perversity – High Court impleaded the appellants’ as accused persons in the underlying proceedings on the satisfaction of a prima-facie finding that the materials on record sufficient to proceed against the appellants – High Court failed to appreciate that the discretionary powers u/s. 319 CrPC ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant – Moreover, the materials on record could not be said to have satisfied the threshold envisaged, that more than a prima facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge but short of evidence that if left unrebutted would lead to conviction – Thus, the impugned order set aside. [Paras 9, 10, 11] Case Law Cited Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 - relied on. 686 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Jogendra Yadav v. State of Bihar, [2015] 9 SCR 69 : (2015) 9 SCC 244; Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2023] 7 SCR 642 : (2023) 7 SCC 344; Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 389 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code,1860. List of Keywords Discretionary powers; Approach adopted by the High Court; Summoning; Impleadment; Reasoned order; Perversity; Prima- facie finding. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1333 of 2024 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 8696 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLRC No. 133 of 2020 Appearances for Parties S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, R. Sudhakaran, T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Ms. Shalini Mishra, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, P.V.K. Deivendran, Advs. for the Appellants. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. AAG., D. Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S., Veshal Tyagi, Chandan Kumar, Madhu Prakash, P. Soma Sundaram, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant(s) assailing the correctness of a decision of the Madras High Court (the “High Court”) dated 13.09.2021, setting aside an order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Ld. XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (the [2024] 2 S.C.R. 687 N. Manogar & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police & Ors. “Trial Court”) whereunder, the Trial Court rejected the application instituted by the Complainant under Section 216 read with Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “CrPC”) seeking (i) the summoning of; and (ii) the impleadment of the Appellant(s) as accused person(s) in connection with Case Crime No. 7243 of 2018 under Section(s) 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”) (the “Impugned Order”). 3. The brief fact(s) culled out of the record are as follows: 3.1. Pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 24.01.2018, Respondent No. 1 registered a First Information Report (“FIR”) dated 20.04.2018 under Section(s) 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC pursuant to a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 i.e., the Complainant whereunder it was alleged that, Respondent No. 3 came to the Complainant’s home asking about one Vidhul i.e., the Complainant’s son. Upon being told that Viduhl was the Complainant’ son Respondent No. 3 slapped the Complainant, pushed her on the sofa, made vulgar comments and thereafter dragged Vidhul out of the bathroom and physically assaulte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.