LexSUBRATA DAS versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 368 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2004) OCTOBER 22, 2010 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Complaint under provisions of /PC and Scheduled Castes and C Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Initially, Magistrate did not find prima facie case against the accused - Later, on the case being remanded by the revisional court, he examined afresh the witness who had been were already examined and held that prima facie case was made out D against the accused - Revisional court upholding the order of Magistrate - Petition for quashing the proceedings, dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held : The High Court rightly did not quash the proceedings - The scope of power u/s. 482 is limited and can be exercised by the High Court E sparingly - On facts, prima facie case was made out against the accused - The mistake, by the Magistrate in examining afresh the witnesses already examined, would not vitiate the proceedings - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 341, 323, 506 and 384 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of F Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(1) and 2(vii). Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the appellant, alleging commission of offences under IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Judicial Magistrate held that no G case was made out. In revision, the Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the Magistrate for reviewing the same afresh. The order of remand passed by the Sessions Judge was upheld by the High Court holding the direction as a part of the further inquiry. The H 368 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 369 Magistrate recorded afresh the depositions of the A witnesses already examined before him and concluded that a prima facie case was made out. In revision, Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the Magistrate. The appellant preferred a petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the instant s appeal was filed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1 There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The power vested in the High Court C under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing an on-going investigation, complaint or other proceedings only in cases where either there is legal bar to the continuance of the proceedings such as the absence of a sanction wherever required or where D averments made in the complaint or first information report even if accepted on their face value do not constitute an offence or where there is no legal evidence to support the charge made against the accused. It is also fairly settled that the powers vested in the High Court E under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and that the court cannot be called upon to appreciate the available evidence or material with a view to find out whether the charge leveled against the accused stands proved. [Para 5] [373-D-G] F Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of UP. and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2554; State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal and Ors. 2004 Crl.L.J. 3866; State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr (2002) 3 SCC 89; Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan 2008 (4) SCC 471; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal G and Ors. 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388 - Referred to. 2.1 A plain reading of the complaint filed by the H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A complainant in the instant case makes out a case against the accused. The depositions of the three witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his complaint also support the·allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate was, therefore, justified in taking cognizance B against the appellant and the co-accused. The revisional court of Additional Sessions Judge, was also correct in holding that a case for issue of process has been made out. Such being the position, the High Court committed no error in declining to interfere u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. [Para c 7] [37 4-8-0) 2.2 The earlier directions by the Session Court to remand back the case to the Magistrate to hold a further enquiry, did not necessarily oblige the Magistrate to record any further evidence in the case. The nature of the D inquiry was in the discretion of the Magistrate which may or may not have included recording of further evidence
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.