LexSOM MITTAL versus GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 130 ..... ~ A SOM MITTAL v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2008) B FEBRUARY 21, 2008 (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN \. AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Judgment of Supreme Court dated 29.1.2008 1 dismissing the appeal against judgment of High Court of Karnataka declining to quash the proceedings - In the concurring judgment one of the Judges comprising the Bench observing that he was not D in agreement with the view of the other Judge that power u/s ,,. 482 shou.ld be used only in "rarest of rare cases" as the phrase is used only with reference to death penalty and its use referring to scope of power uls 482 was inappropriate - The Judge, in para 17 to 39 of his concurring judgment, further E making recommendations and giving directions relating to anticipatory bail in U.P. and enforcement of directions relating to arrest as laid down in Joginder Kumar's2 case - Held : When the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing the scope ~ F of section 482, those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'- They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case G for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice-The expression "'rarest of rare cases" 1. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 2 SCR 323. ... 2. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P (1994) 4 SCC 260. H 130 SOM MITTAL v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 131 ,,,_ [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] .. is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to A punishment for offences under Section 302 /PC, but to emphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr. PC. to quash ~ the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection - Judgment - Interpretation of Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC B _j 451 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 - relied on. Bachan Singh v. State of Puojab AIR 1980 SC 898 - referred to. c JUDGMENT Judgment of superior Courts - Interpretation of - Judgments are not to be construed as statutes- Nor words or ....,,: phrases in judgments to be interpreted like provisions of a D statute-Words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally- Ratio decidendi of a judgment is not to be discerned from a stray word or phrase read in isolation - Ratio decidendi. APPEAL E Appellate Court - Jurisdiction of - Held: The subject · matter of an appeal, whether civil or criminal, is the correctness ·~· of the decision of the court below - There is no question of appellate court traveling beyond and making observations F ~ alien to the case - Any opinion, observation, comment or recommendation de hors the subject of the appeal, may lead to confusion in the minds of litigants, members of public and authorities as they will not know how to regulate their affairs, or whether to act upon it - In the instant case, the appeal did not relate to grant of anticipatory bail nor did it relate to rights of G arrested persons - This Court has repeatedly cautioned that while rendering judgments, courts should only deal with the subject matter of the case and issues involved therein - Courts should desist from issuing directions affecting executive or legislative policy, or general directions unconnected with the H 132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A subject matter of the case - A court may express its views on a particular issue in appropriate cases only where it is relevant to the subject matter of the case -Another aspect that requires to be kept in view is the fact that even when it becomes necessary for a court for whatsoever reason, to decide or B comment upon an issue not raised by the parties, it may do so only after notifying the parties concerned so that they can put forth their views on such issue - In so far as the observations, recommendations, and directions in paras 17 to 39 of the concurring judgment*, suffice it to say that they do C not relate to the subject matter of the criminal appeal and being the expression of an expectation or hope by only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.