LexRENUKA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009) 2 S.C.R. 623 RENUKA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2009 FEBRUARY 18, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : A B ss.258, 245 and 300 - Complaint against appellant - Charge sheet submitted - Processes issued - Further c proceedings stopped by trial court on the premise that whereabouts of appellant were not known - Appellant subsequently traced out whereupon trial court permitted the prosecution to re-open the case and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against her- Challenge to - Held: Although 0 the Magistrate could revive the proceedings, it erred in not -'I recording reasons therefor - As some reasons were stated in the requisition made by police authorities for issuance of non- bailable warrant of arrest upon reopening the case, it was obligatory on the part of Magistrate to apply his mind with regard thereto - Magistrate directed to pass appropriate order E upon consideration of the requisition filed by Police Authorities afresh - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 20. A complaint was lodged alleging that a quarrel had taken pla·ce by and between the complainant and the F accused-appellant, during course of which, the appellant trespassed in her compound, restrained her, pulled her hair, assaulted herwith chappal, removed hermangalsutra and damaged her bangles causing loss of Rs.200/- to her. Charge sheet was submitted on completion of G investigation and processes were issued against the appellant. However, further proceedings were stopped by the trial court on the premise that the whereabouts of the appellant were not known. Tile appellant was subse- 623 H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A quently traced out whereupon the trial court permitted the prosecution to re-open the case and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against her. Appellant filed petition under s.482 CrPC which was dismissed by the B High Court. Hence the .present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD:1. In the present case, no order for release of the accused was passed. No order of releasing the accused was necessary to be passed as the appellant C was not before the court. She had not even been arrested. After the proceedings were stopped by the Magistrate, no consequential order was passed and indeed could not have been passed. The benefit of effect of discharge could have been claimed by the appellant had she been D . directed to be released, the effect of discharge being correlated with release. If she had not been released, the questi9n of her obtaining the. benefit of the effect of discharge does not arise. An order of discharge can be passed in terms of s.245 CrPC. For passing an order under E ttie· aforesaid provision, reasons are required to be recorded. [Paras 8, 9] [628-8; 628-H; 629-A-B] SheonandanPaswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1987) 1 sec 288 - relied on. F , 2'. The Magistrate in this case did not record any reason. Mandatorily reasons were required to be recorded·~ The Magistrate, thus, although has power to revive the ,proceedings, he should have passed an appropriate order upon application of mind. He did not G · do so. He has directed reopening of the case and directed issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest again without recording any reason. It appears from the Order Sheet that some reasons have been stated in the requisition made by PSI, 8. Nagar, Police Station, Bangalore for issuance H · of non-bailable warrant of arrest upon reopening the case. J '. ~ RENUKA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 625 It was obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his A mind with regard thereto. [Para 1 O] [629-C-D] 3. Although the High court was correct that the Magistrate in a situation of this nature could revive the proceedings, the Magistrate committed an error in not recording reasons therefor. TherefoJe, while setting aside B the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the Magistrate reopening the case, the Magistrate is directed to pass an appropriate order upon consideration of the requisition filed by the Police Authorities afresh. [Para 11] [629-E-F] C Case Law Reference (1987) 1 sec 288 relied on Para 9 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D No. 329 of 2009 From the Order dated 20.6.2008 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Crl. Petition No. 3037 of 2006. R.S. He
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.