LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus DR. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. DR. KRISHNA CHANDRA SAKSENA, OCTOBER 11, 1996 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 482-Quashing of Criminal Proceedings-Challan stage-Sanction for prosecution granted-Be[ ore filing of Challan High Court quashing the proceedings-Held interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings should be done very spa1ingly and in exceptional cases. A B c The respondent was a medical officer in the services of appellant State. On a complaint against him for demand of bribe, trap was laid and respondent was arrested. After completion for investigation sanction for D prosecution of the respondent was granted by the State Government. Before the challan could be filed the respondent got stay order from the High Court in a Writ Petition. Subsequently the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the prosecution. Hence the State has preferred ~... present appeal. E Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The Single Judge of the High Court had ex- facie erred in interfering with the criminal proceedings at the stage of filing a challan after investigation which was backed up by relevant sanction. Interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a criminal proceedings should be F done very sparingly and in exceptional cases. The extraordinary or in- herent powers do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to its whim or caprice. The Court will not be justified in •'" embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or other- wise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. [507-C-E] G State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, [1992] Supp. -.. 1 sec 335, relied on. 2. It could not prima f acie be said that the sanction order was patently illegal. If ultimately at the state of trial it is found that the H 503 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A sanction was liable to fail on any relevant ground, then the respondent may be entitled to acquittal. But at the stage of quashing of criminal proceed- ings where even challan had not been filed the order of sanction could not .,._ have been treated by the High Court as ex-[ acie illegal or invalid. It is well settled that at the stage of granting of sanction the accused need not be B heard, it is too premature at the present stage to hold that all necessary and relevant evidence must not have been considered by the sanction:lng authority. These aspects would be better examined at the stage of trial for invalidating the sanction. (510-A-C) 3. This Court fails to appreciate the relevancy at this stage of rthe C observation made by the Single Judge that the complainant is not trace- able. Investigating agency has recorded the statement of the complainant and it had been considered by the sanctioning authority. It could not be urged that complainant was not available at the stage of investigation a.nd filing of Challan against the accused. The proceedings could not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by not permitting the trial to proceed D when there is sufficient material collected during investigation including the version of the complainant to implicate the accused and to call upon him to face the trial. [511-H, 512-A·C] 4. It is clarified that whatever observation made in this judgment are E confined to the limited question as to whether the respondent should be prosecuted or not and these observations shall not be given any weightage while deciding the culpability of the respondent at the stage of tl'ial a.nd such decision would be strictly confined to the evidence led by the prosem- tion at the stage of trial and the defence evidence, if any, le~ by the respondent. (511-F-G] F State of Maharashtra v. /shwar Rirafi Kalpatri and Others., (1995) 6 Scale 674 and Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary and Others, AIR (1996) SC 186, relied on. G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1800 of 1996. From the Judgment and ·Order dated 17.11.95 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Crl. Case No. 946 of 1989. H K.N. Shukla, B.S. Banthia and Uma Nath Singh for the Appellant. _, STAIB v. KC. SAKSENA[S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 505 R.K. Jain, Sushil Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija and K.K. Gogna for the A Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. Leave granted. We have heard learned advocates of part
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.