LexSTATE OF DELHI versus GYAN DEVI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF DELHI v. GY AN DEVI AND ORS. OCTOBER 18, 2000 B [D.P. MOHAPATRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 304, 341 482-Charges framed-High Court directing Trial Court to record medical evidence-High Court quashing the charges on basis of medical evidence- C Inherent Power of High Court-Held, quashing of Charges on basis of medical evidence without considering entire prosecution evidence, which was not placed on record, is improper-Inherent Power should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. D Respondents, mother-in-law and husband of the victim were accused of qrnrder. Trial Court framed charges under Sections 304/34 I.P.C. The respondents filed petition before High Court for revision. High Court disposed of the petition directing the Trial Court to record medical evidence first and exempting the respondents from personal appearance in the Trial Court till E such time. Trial Court recorded the medical evidence. The respondents filed an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge from the offence under Section 304/34 l.P.C., which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and set aside the order of the Trial Court. F In appeal to this Court, State contended that the High Court erred in G quashing the charges on the basis of medical evidence only; and that the entire prosecution evidence was not placed on record before the Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to esta.blish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied H that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out 270 - - STATE OF DELHI v. GYAN DEVI 271 against the accused persons. When the petition is filed by the accused under A Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of charge framed against them, t~e Court should not interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court, a charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare B occasions. Once the Trial Court has framed a charge against an accused, the trial must proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior Court and the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained sans exceptional of cases. 1274-E-GI C 1.2 The High Court has erred in its approach to the case as if it was evaluating the medical evidence for the purpose of determining the question whether the charge under section 304/34 l.P.C. framed against the accused respondents was likely to succeed or not. This question was to be considered by the Trial Judge after recording the entire evidence in the case. It was not ,D the High Court to pre-judge the case at the stage when only a few witnesses (doctors) had been examined by the prosecution and that too under the direction of the High Court in the revision petition filed by the accused. The High Court has not observed that the prosecution had closed the evidence from its side. There is also no discussion or observation in the impugned E order that the facts and circumstances of the case make it an exceptional case in which immediate interference of the High Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted in the interest of justice. On consideration of the matter, it is seen that the order under challenge is vitiated on account of erroneous approach of the High Court and it is clearly unsustainable. [276-H; 277-A-CI F Mohd. Akber Dar & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., 119811 Supp. SCC 80; Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari & Ors., 119891Supp.2 SCC 572; Minakshi Bals v. Sudhir Kumar & 'Ors.,. 119941 4 SCC 142 and State of MP. v. S.B. Johari & Ors., 120001 2 SCC 57, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeai No. G 888 of 2000. From the Judgment and Order dat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.