Baikunth Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors
- SCC(2008) 14 SCC 766
- Neutral2008 INSC 1433
- AIRAIR 2008 SC Supp 711
- SCR[2008] 17 SCR 561
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application for quashing criminal proceedings is made to the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the complainant upon whose complaint the proceedings rest must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the application is disposed of, particularly where the original proceedings were initiated on the basis of that complaint. Where the High Court exercises power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash proceedings, it cannot rest its decision upon presumptions and surmises unsupported by material evidence regarding the motive of the complainant, especially where the appropriate stage for considering such considerations had not yet arisen.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Baikunth Singh .....Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar and Ors. ......Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single
Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the order passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable
under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The High
Court exercised power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The High Court was of the view that
the case might have been filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the
petitioners before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was
lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act
against the complainant and others.
3. Various points were urged in support of the appeal. Primarily it was
submitted that the petition was disposed of without issuing notice to the
complainant. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code was not warranted on the facts of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the order of
the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported
the stand of the appellant.
5. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was impleaded as a party
in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9428 of 2006 which was filed by
respondents 2 and 3. Strangely, without issuing any notice the petition was
disposed of. 6. The High Court has come to a conclusion which appears
2 to have been more on presumptions and surmises that the case might have
been filed to pressurize the applicants before the High Court. There was no
material in this regard and in any event the stage for deciding that question
had not arisen.
7. It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required
to be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were initiated on the
basis of the complaint filed by the appellant which was registered as
Complaint Case No.272 of 2002.
8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, we set aside the impugned order. We direct the parties to appear
before the High Court without any further notice on 21st January, 2009. The
Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matter to an
appropriate Bench.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
............................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
3 New Delhi, December 15, 2008
4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free