LexVINEET KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2017] 6 S.C.R. 922 VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 577of2017) MARCH 31, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, I973 - s.482 - Quashing of - The complainant, her husband and her son had borrowed some amounts from the accused persons - Ensuring repayment to accused. various cheques were drawn, which were dishonoured - Pursuant thereto, complaints uls.138 Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the accused - Thereafter, complainant alleged rape by the accused at her house and filed application uls. I 56(3) Cr.P. C. before magistrate- During investigation, JO recorded statement of D prosecutrixlcomplainant u/s.I64 Ci:PC. and after considering other materials came to conclusion that no such incident took place and submitted final report - But, Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed and summoned the accused - Revision filed by accused against the order, was dismissed - High Court also dismissed E F application uls. 482 Cr.P. C. - On appeal, held: No medical examination of the complainant was done on the date of incident - It was done after almost a month, which was totally irrelevant - Further, Brother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant recorded • their statements that complainant had lodged a false report - Investigating officer also could not find any proof of offence - Apart from bald assertions by the complainant that all accused raped ·her, there was nothing which could have led the Courts to form an opinion against the accused - The materials indicated that the criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with ulterior motive - Therefore, judgment of G High Court as well as orders passed by lower courts including the entire criminal proceedings quashed - Penal Code, I860 - ss.452. 376(d), 323. H Code of Criminal Procedurq, I973 - s. 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Held:· In case solemn process of court is sought to be abused by a person with oblique motive, the Court has to thwart 922 VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 923 the attempt at the very threshold - The Court cannot permit a A prosecution to go on, if the case falls in one of the categories illustratively enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal - Judicial process cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment - Administration of Justice. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. There was sufficient material on record to indicate that there were financial transactions between the accused and complainant, her husband and son. On dishonour of cheques issued by the complaint's husband and son, proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were already initiated by the accused. All family members of the complainant were living in the same house. During investigation, IO has recorded the statements of brother of complainant's husband as well as wife of husband's brother who were residing in the same house and have categorically denied that any incident happened in their house. Both, in their statements and affidavits have condemned the complainant for lodging a false report. Their statements were part of the Case Diary and was mat_erial which ought to have been looked into which was submitted by the IO in the Final Report. [Paras 28, 34) [940-C; 941-B-D) 2. The fact is that no medical examination was got done on the date of incident or even on the next day or on 07.11.2015, when IO asked the complainant and her husband to get done the medical examination. Subsequently it was done on 20.11.2015, which was wholly irrelevant. Apart from bald assertions by the complainant that all accused have raped, there was nothing which could have led the Courts to form an opinion that present case is fit a case of prosecution which ought to be launched. Further, the statement given by the prosecutrix/complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly brushed away but the statement was required to be considered along with antecedents, facts and circumstances as noted above. [Para 35] [941-D-F) 3. There are cases where despite statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by prosecutrix the Supreme Court referring to material collected during investigation had held that the case was fit where the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings. [Para 38) [944-E) • c D E F G H 924 A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.