STATE OF KARNATAKA versus L. MUNISWAMY & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 03-03-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
113 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
V-
L. MUNISW AMY & ORS. 
March 3. 1977 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Code of C1i111inal Procedure. 1973 (Act II of 1974)-S.482 (s. 561 A of 
·1899 Code)-lnllerent power of the High Court to quash proceiedings at the 
stage of fra1ning of charges-Explained. 
The appellants are accused Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15 and 17 to 20 before the 
Sessions Court for trial under various offences, viz., ss. 324, 326, and 
307 
read with s.: 34 of the Penal Code. While discharging accused Nos. 11, 
1~ 
and 16 u/s 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on 8.8.1975, 
the 
learned Se~~ions Judge observed that there was "some material to hold that 
the remaining accused have had something to do with the incident 
which 
occurred on 6.12.1973 in I.T.I. Colony. Bangalore" and adjourned the case to 
September l, 1975, "for framing specific charges as made out from the material 
on record against the rest of the accused persons". 
Two revision petitions 
were filed anainst this order. one by accused Nos. 10. 13, 14 and 15 
and 
the other by accused Nos. 17 to 20. 
These petitions were allowed by the 
High Court on the view that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding 
against the petitioners before it. 
The High" Court accordingly quashed 
the 
proceedings in regard to them. 
In appeal by Special Leave, the appellant State contended : 
( 1) 
The 
High Court ought not to have exercised its power to quash the proceedings 
against the respondents without giving to the Sessions Court, which was seized 
of the case. an opportunity to consider whether there was sufficient material 
on the record on which to frame charges against the respondents. (ii) 
In 
any event the I-ligh Court could not take upon itself the task of assessing or 
nppreciating the weight of material on the record in order to find 
whether 
any charges could be legitimately framed against the respondents. 
Dismissin2 the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l 1) The High Court was justified in holding that for meeting the 
ends of justice the proceedings against the respondents ought to be quashed. 
It would be a sheer waste of public time and money to permit the proceedings 
to continue against the respondents, when there is no material on the record 
on '''hich any tribunal could reasonably convict them for any offence connected 
V.'ith the assault on the complainant. 
This is one of these cases in which a 
charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct 
involvement of the accused is lacking. [118 A, D-E] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
f2) The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil 
and 
criminal matters, is designed to achieve a Salutary public purpose which 
is 
that a Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weaoon 
G 
of harassment or persecution. 
In a criminal case. the veiled object behind 
a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure 
of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing 
the proceeding in the interest of justice. [117 F-G] 
(3) Considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing 
the ends of justice vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as 
the one ct1nferred by s. 482 ought not to be encased within the strait-jacket of 
a rigid formula. The three instances cited in the Judgment in R. P. Kapoor Vs. 
H 
The State of Punjab, [1960] 3 SCR 3R8, as to when the High Court would be 
justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction are only illustrative and can in 
the very·nature of things not be regarded as exhaustive. [118 F-H, 119 Al 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19 77] 3 S·C.R. 
R. P. Kapur vs. State af P1111iab [1960] 3 SCR 338 explained. 
(4) It is wrong to say that at the stage of framing charges the 
Court 
cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is 
any ground for presuming the commission of the offence. 
[119 B] 
_(5) While considering whether there is sufficient 
ground for proceeding 
agai.nst an accused, the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion 
in 
the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material 
on 
the record. if unrebutted. is such on the basis of which a conviction can be 
said reasonably to be possible. 
[119 B-E] 
Vadilal Panchal v. D. D. Ghadigao11kar AIR 1960 SC 1113; Century 
Spinning & Afanufact11ri11g Co. v. State of Maharashtra ATR 1972 SC 54

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.