RAJINDER PRASAD versus BASHIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 19-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAJINDER PRASAD 
v. 
BASHIR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI,.JJ.] 
CriTiiittal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Section 203-Chargesheet by Police-Addition of offence uls .. 395 /PC · 
and impleadment of 4 accused therein, by the Magistrate-Set aside by High 
Court on the ground that procedi11-e_ uls 203 was not.followedby the Magistrate,- . . 
Held, High Court committed mistake of law, since the section deals with 
complaints to.Magistrate. 
· Sections 397 and 482-Dismissal of Petition u/s 397-Subsequent 
D 
application.u/s 482 .for the same relief-Held. not maintainabie. 
E 
F 
Section 190-Jurisdiction under-Scope of-Held, Magistrate has 
jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences even.against persons who have not 
been arrested by the police as accused if they were prima .facie guilty of the 
offences. 
Appellant-comt>lainant filed applications before Magistrate seeking 
addition of offence under Section 395 IPC against the respondents and 
. seeking impleadment of four accused-respondents to the police chargesheet. 
Magistrate taking recourse to Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C., allowed the 
applications and committed the case to SessiOns Court, who framed charges 
including charge under Section 395 IPC again~t the respondents. 
Respondents' revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the 
order of the Magistrate was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter 
respondents filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order 
G 
of the Magistrate. High Court allowed the petition holding that the 
Magistrate, being the court of committal had no power to add four 
respondents as accused, without adopting procedure under Section 203 
Cr.P.C. and directed the Magistrate to hold inquiry as per Section 203(2) 
before inclusion of the offence under Section 395 IPC. 
H 
In appeal to this Court, appellate contended that since revision petition 
156 
.. 
" 
r
RAJINDER PRASAD v. BASHIR 
157 
of the respondents was dismissed as not pressed, they were barred from 
A 
filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the order of 
the Magistrate, and that the High Court had committed a mistake of law 
by directing the Magistrate to follow the procedure under section 203 
Cr.P.C. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1. When revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 
had been dismissed as not pressed the accused-respondents could not be 
allowed to subsequently invoke the inherent powers of the High Court 
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the grant of the same relief. Only in cases 
where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse 
C 
of judicial mechanism of procedure or if sentence or order was not correct, 
the High Court may in its discretion, prevent the abuse of the process or 
miscarriage of justice by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 
No special circumstances were spelt out in· the subsequent application for 
invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P~C. a~d D 
the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground.alone. 
[160-C; G 161-A; BJ 
Krishnan & Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Ors., [1997J 4 SCC 241, relied on. 
2. High Court committed a mistake of law by refe1·ring to the 
provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C. and by directing the Judicial Magistrate 
E 
to hold inquiry as per Section 203(2) Cr.P.C. before deciding the inclusion 
of offence under Section 395 IPC or impleadment of the respondents as 
accused persons. Chapter XV of the Code comprising of Sections 200 to 
203 deals with the complaints to Magistrate and the procedure prescribed 
for dealing with such complaints. In the instant case no complaint was filed 
F 
before the Magistrate by the complainant requiring him to follow the 
procedure under Chapter XV. Reference to sub-section (2) of Section 203 
Cr.P.C. is misconceived inasmuch as no such sub-section exists in the 
statute book. [161-B; DJ 
3. In view of Section 190 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate has jurisdiction to 
G 
take cognizance of offences against such persons also who have not been 
arrested by the police as accused persons, if it appears from the evidence 
collected by the police that they were primafacie guilty of offence alleged to 
have been committed. [161-GJ 
Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, [1967J 2 SCR 423 and Mis. SWIL 
H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Ltd: v. State of Delhi & Am:, JT (2001) 6 SC 405, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimina

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