SH. GANESH NARYAN HEDGE versus SH.S. BANGARAPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 20-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

i 
\ 
SH. GANESH NARYAN HEDGE 
A 
v. 
SH. S. BANGARAPPA AND ORS. 
APRIL 20, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973·: 
Sections 399 (3) & 482-Second Revision Application by the same 
party-Remedy u/s 399 does not bar a person from invoking the inherent C 
power of High Court-High Court not to act as second revisional court in the 
garb of exercising inherent powers-High Court not to go into appreciation of 
evidence while exercising imperent power and specificallrWhen first 
revisional court denied inteiference. 
Complaint not to be disallowed to be proceeded with on the ground of D 
delay of 12 year;--When complainant not responsible for delay-Moreover 
when such contention not raised before High Court-lnteiference of Superior 
ccwts at initial or interlocutory stages of criminal trial-Deprecated. 
A complaint was filed by appellant against 3 respondents u/s 500 E 
!PC. Charge were framed by Magistrate, recording the reasons thereof. 
Revision before the Additional sessions Judge, against the order of 
tbe Magistrate, was preferred, which was dismissed holding that framing 
of the charges by the Magistrate could be interfered with by the revisional 
court only when it is fonnd that the order of the Magistrate is illegal, F 
capricious or perverse. 
High Court was approached u/s 482 CR. P.C. praying for quashing 
of the charge. Single Judge allowed the petition quashing the charge on 
merits, against which the present appeal has been filed. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this conrt 
HELD : 1.1. Availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions 
Jndge U/s 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High 
Conrt u/s 482. [556-C] 
H 
549 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. The High Court cau not act as a second Revisional Court under 
the grab of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent powers 
in such a matter it should be conscious of the fact that the Sessions Judge 
has declined to exercise bis power ofrevision in the matter. The High Court 
should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to 
be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of court or that the 
B interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. [556-C, DJ 
Mrs. Dhanlaxmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar & Ors. AIR (1990) SC4921 and 
State of Bihar v.MuradAli Khan and others, [1988J 4 SCC 655, referred to. 
C 
1.3. In this case High Court has gone beyond the purview of section 
D 
482 in quashing the charge as it has not been held that the evidence 
adduced by the complaint, oral or documentary, if unrebutted, would not 
have warranted the conviction of the accused within the meaning of section 
245 (1), nor has it held that on evidence adduced, the Magistrate could not 
have reasonably formed an opinion that there is ground for presuming 
that the accused bas committed an offence as contemplated by section 246 
(1). [558-B, CJ 
1.4. While acting under section 482 and that too after the Sessions 
Judge has declined to interfere in the matter, the High Court ought not to 
E have entered the arena of appreciation of evidence, nor should it have 
recorded a finding. [559-H, 560-AJ 
2.1. As regards the claim that after a period of twelve years, the 
matter should not be allowed to be proceeded with, the court is of the 
opinion that complainant is certainly not responsible for this delay. 
F 
Moreover, this contention does not appear to have been raised before the 
High Court. [560-CJ 
2.2. Due to various reasons, criminal trial in our country excel in 
slow motion and this slow motion becomes slower when politically powerful 
G or rich and infiuential persons figure as accused FIRs are quashed, 
charges are quashed, interlocutory orders are interfered with and at every · 
step there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ peti· 
tions. In short no progress is ever allowed to be made. [560-D, E] 
It is sad to note that repeated admonitions of this court have not 
H deterred superior courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages 
/ 
-f 
GANESH NARAYAN HEDGEv. S.BANGARAPPA (B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 551 
of criminal cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases A 
where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be matter of course. 
[560-FJ 
Justice Krishna Iyer's concurring view in Re - The Special Court Bill, 
1978 [1979) 1 sec 380, referred to. 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.