LexSANJEET KUMAR versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2009] 6 S.C.R. 1208 SANJEET KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2009) APRIL 27, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing C of criminal proceedings - Inherent power of High Court under s.482 - Scope of - Police case by respondent no.2 - Thereafter appellant filed complaint case - Application moved by respondent no.2 for discharge u/s.245 rejected-· Petition u/s.482 alleging counter-blast on part of appellant - Allowed D by High Court - On appeal, held: High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that since the complaint case was filed after filing of police case by respondent no.2, it was filed with ulterior and oblique motive - That is not the way to deal with an application under s.482 - Matter remitted to High Court E for consideration afresh keeping in view the parameters of s.482. Respondent no.2 filed a police case. One week later, the appellant filed a complaint case. Respondent no.2 moved application for discharge uls.245 CrPC which was F rejected by the Magistrate. Respondent no.2 filed petition uls.482 CrPC taking the stand that the complaint of appellant was filed as a counter-blast. The High Court allowed the petition G holding that since the complaint case was filed after filing of the police case by respondent no.2, it was filed with ulterior and oblique motive. The order passed by the High Court is challenged in H 1208 . ;. - SANJEET KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 1209 the present appeal on the ground that thereby the High A Court considered the possible defence of respondent no.2 which was beyond the scope of consideration under s.482 CrPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: The High Court referred to the respective stand of the parties and came to an abrupt conclusion that since the complaint case was filed after filing of the police case by respondent no.2, it was filed with ulterior and oblique motive. That certainly is not the way to deal C with an application under s.482 CrPC. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the parameters of s.482 of Cr.PC. [Paras 6 and 9) [1210-G; D 1212-F-G] State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp.(1) sec 335), relied on. Case Law Reference: 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 relied on Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2009 E From the Judgment & Order dated 0.5.2007 of the High F Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Misc. No. 4619 of 2004. N. Rai, Shantanu Sagar, Shamsher Singh, Avinash Sharma and T. Mahipal for the Appellant. Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and Pranab Prakash for the G Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. H 1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 6 S.C.R. A 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The petition was filed by the respondent no.2. In the petition challenge was to the order B dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Trial No.286 of 2003. The petition filed by the present respondent no.2 for discharge under Section 245 of the Code was rejected. The stand of the applicant before the High Court was that as a counter blast to certain incidents, the petition had c been filed belatedly. The present appellant opposed the petition taking the stand that ultimately it was a question of defence and could not -have been agitated in an application under Section 482 of the Code. 3. The High Court noted that on the basis of the complaint D lodged by the present respondent no.2 charge sheet had been filed. According to him, the original occurrence took place on 5.5.2000 and the complaint was filed after a week as a counter blast. The High Court by practically a non-reasoned order has allowed the application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code. It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that - E ultimately what the High Court has done is to consider the possible defence which is beyond the scope of consideration under Section 482 of the Code. 4. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 F despite service of notice. 5. Learned counsel for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.