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

1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL 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