URMILA DEVI versus YUDHVIR SINGH

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 23-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 16 S.C.R. 542 
URMILA DEVI 
v. 
YUDHVIR SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 23, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM 
KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial - Summoning order - Nature of - How to 
C construe order passed by a Magistrate in exercise of its power 
u/ss. 200 and 202 CrPC when it decides to issue process as 
against the accused - Whether such an order could be the 
subject matter of challenge by way of revision u!s. 397 CrPC 
- Held: The order issued by the Magistrate deciding to 
D summon an accused in .exercise of his power u!ss. 200 to 204 
CrPC would be an order of intermediatory or quasi-final in 
• 
nature and not interlocutory in nature - In view of the said 
position viz., such an order is intermediatory order or quasi-
fina/ order, the revisionary jurisdiction provided u/s.397 CrPC, 
E either with the District Court or with the High Court can be 
worked out by the aggrieved party·- Such an order of a 
Magistrate deciding to isst..ie process or summons to an 
accused in exercise of his power u/ss.200 to 204 CrPC, can 
always be subject matter of challenge under the .inherent 
F jurisdiction of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC -·Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss.200 to 204, 397 and 482. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 397 - Order of 
Magistrate, directing issuance of summons - Challenge to -
Scope of power and jurisdiction of the Revisional court 
G exercising jurisdiction uls.397 CrPC - Held: Revisional 
jurisdiction uls.397 CrPC is available to the aggrieved party 
in challenging the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance 
of summons - Revision. 
H 
542 
URMILA DEVI v. YUDHVIR SlNGH 
543 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.197, 198 and 53, 
A 
54 - Sanction for prosecution -
Protection of s.197 CrPC if 
available - Test of direct and reasonable connection between 
official duty of the accused and the offences allegedly 
committed - According to appellant, based on a complaint 
preferred by 'M' alleging that the appellant and 'R' were living 
B 
in an illicit relationship, the respondent Executive Magistrate! 
SOM, acted without authority of law and without any lawful 
justification, harassed the complainant-appellant, violated her 
right to privacy, and subjected her to an unwarranted public 
humiliation - Whether offences allegedly committed by the c 
respondent were committed while he was 'acting or purporting · 
to act in the discharge of his official duty'; and whether sanction 
uls. 197 CrPC was necessary for prosecuting him- Held: The 
offences alleged by 'M' against the appellant, if to be taken 
cognizance of, could have fallen under any of the offences D 
falling under Chapter XX of /PC - For all or any of the 
offences falling in Chapter XX, an aggrieved person can be 
either the husband or the wife and none else other than those 
falling under the proviso to sub-section (2) of s. 198 CrPC -
'M' not an aggrieved person falling u!s. 198(1) CrPC or E 
governed by proviso to s.198(2) CrPC - Therefore, it cannot 
be held that respondent validly exercised his authority as 
Executive Magistrate/SOM when he acted on the complaint 
of 'M' - No scope to bring the action of respondent uls.198 
CrPC - Further, no scope for respondent to contend that he 
acted by virtue of the authority vested in him uls.107 CrPC -
Also there was no scope for anyone, inuch less for the 
respondent in the capacity of an Executive Magistrate to order 
F 
for forcible medical examination of appellant and 'R' prior to 
their arrest and in absence of any alleged offence requiring 
such medical examination - Even assuming the allegation 
G 
of 'M' was true on its face value, respondent-SOM could not 
have taken a decision to barge into the house of appellant-
lady, that too at the odd hours of 10 pm accompanied by a 
posse of police officers under the guise of ascertaining the 
H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A truthfulness or otherwise of such a complaint and for that 
purpose engage the services of two cameramen also with 
video cameras - Such behaviour of respondent, if ultimately 
found to be true, can only be held to be a high handed one 
bordering on indecency of the highest order, wholly abusing 
B his status as SOM - Since none of the actions alleged against 
the respondent by the appellant can be held to be one in which 
he acted 1n his capacity as the Executive Magistrate, 
invocation of s.197 CrPC wholly uncalled for - Plea of 
respondent that pro

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