Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Rajesh Rangarajan vs M/S Crop Care Fed.Of India & Anr

Supreme Court20 July 2010Deepak Verma · Dalveer Bhandari

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A complaint filed under Sections 120(B), 34, 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code lacks the basic ingredients necessary to sustain those charges where the document complained of—a Fact Finding Committee report on pesticide exposure—was an indicative study not aimed at harming, hurting or defaming any individual or manufacturing company, and was not intended to cause such harm or defamation. Where a complaint lacks the basic ingredients of the criminal offences charged, the High Court or appellate court should exercise its power to quash the complaint rather than permit trial to proceed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2010(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.3700 of 2008)

RAJESH RANGARAJAN ... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

M/S.CROP CARE FED. OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 13.12.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra

Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.,4155 of 2006. Mr.Raj Panjwani,

learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our

attention to Annexure P-1, which is the Report of the Fact Finding

Committee which deals with Farmers Death Due to Exposure to

Pesticides in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh.

We have carefully perused the Report. The relevant page

of the report, which is at Page 40 of the paper book, clearly

indicate that the Fact Finding Committee was not aimed at doing

health study or in-depth scientific investigation, but to do an

indicative study which would lead to a larger health study. The

general tenor of the report indicates that the report meant to focus

the harmful effects of exposure to pesticides. It is quite evident

from the report that it was not meant to harm, hurt or defame any

individual or the manufacturing company. Mr.Panjwani, learned 2

senior counsel appearing for the appellant also fairly submitted

that the report was not intended to harm or defame any individual or

manufacturers of pesticides. In our considered opinion, the

complaint filed under Sections 120(B), 34, 500, 501 & 502 of the

Indian Penal Code lack basic ingredients. According to our view, no

useful purpose would be served in permitting the trial Court to

proceed with the complaint which lacks the basic ingredients of

aforementioned Sections. Consequently, we quash the complaint.

Since the complaint itself has been quashed, therefore,

the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI;

20TH JULY, 2010

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