SMT. NAGAWWA versus VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI & ORS.

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 23-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
123 
SMT. NAGAWWA 
A. 
V. 
VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI & ORS. 
April 23, 1976 
' ,.. 
fA. C. GUPTA AND S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
COde of Crin1inal Procedure, ss. 202, 204-Enquiry under s. 202-Scope of 
... . 
-Accused if had locus sta'ndi. 
' 
The appellant filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the 
police did not deliberately charge-sheet respondents 1 and 2 despite the fact 
that they abetted in the murder of her son because they were influential persons. 
After the inquiry the Magistrate issued a process to respondents 1 and 2 under 
c 
s. 204(l){b) of the Code of Oiminal Procedure, 1973. Tho revision petition 
of respondents I and 2 filed under s. 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the High 
Court. Jn appeal to this Court it. was contended for the appellan? that the 
High Court was ih error in examining the order of the Magistrate on merits after 
taking j,nto consideration the doculll';::nts filed by the respondents, which did not 
form part af the complaint or evidence recorded in support thereof before tho 
Magistrate. 
Allowing the appeal, 
)) 
·HELD : The order of the High Court suffers from a serious legal infirmity 
and. the High Court has exceeded its jurisdictiOn. in interfering in revision b-y 
qua;hing the order of the Magistrate. 
[129 H] 
( 1) In the following case! an order of the Magistrate can be quashed or 
liet aside : 
(a) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the 
witne"S.scs recorded in supp0rt of the same taken at their face value make out 
absolutely no case against the accused or the COD"Jplaint docs not disclose the 
essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; 
(b) Where the allegation! made in the compiaint are patentiy absurd and 
ioh.erently improbable so that no prudent person ca"n ever reach a conclusion 
that ijhere is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 
(1:) Where the discr~tion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is 
capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on mate-
ri~Is which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and 
{d) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, 
want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and 
the like. 
(128 C-E] 
(2)(a) At the stage of issuing the process the Magistrate is n1ainly oon· 
ccrned with allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led and he is 
onty to be. prima fade Satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proc:eed-
io.g against the accused. It is not the province of thti Magistrate to enter into a 
detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of the 
in.qujry under s. 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited-lin1ited to the ascertainment 
of the truth. or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: 
(i) on 
the materials placed by the complainant before the court (ii) for the limited 
Purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process had 
been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of 
view .of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the 
accused may have. In prooeedings under s. 202 the accused has got absolutely 
llO focus standi and iSi not entitled to be heard on the question whether the 
process should be issued against him or not. 
(126 E; 127 E+l 
E 
F 
G 
H 
124 
SUP!\EME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
A 
Chandra Deo Sing/1 v. Prokas/i Chandra Bose, [1964] I S.C.R. 6l9 and 
Vadilal Panchal 
v. 
Dattatraya Dulaii Ghadigaonker and Another, 
[19"61] 1 
S.C.R. I, followed. 
B 
c 
D 
(_b) In coming to a decision as to \Vhether a process should be issued the 
~:1ag1strate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on 
the face of the complaint or in evidence led by the complainant in support 
of the allegations. 
Once the Magistrate has exercised judicially the discretion 
given to him it is not for the High Court or even this Court to substitute 
its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits 
with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complain!, if 
proved. would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considera-
tions are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of inquiry under s.. 202 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which culminates in an order under s. 204 
of the Code. 
[1_27 G.H; 128 A-BJ 
(3) In the instant case the High Court should not have quashed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.