S.A. Nanjundeswara vs M.S. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
- SCC(2002) 10 SCC 249
- AIRAIR 2002 SC 477
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The High Court's power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process is limited to cases where the statements in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not disclose any offence at all; the High Court exceeds its jurisdiction if it re-evaluates the prima facie material or shifts the materials to reach a conclusion that no case has been made out, as the Magistrate's determination of prima facie case at the cognizance stage is not to be reopened by examining the strength or sufficiency of the evidence in that manner.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the High Court quashing a complaint proceeding exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after examining the complainant the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. The accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao assailed the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process by filing application in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the said order of taking cognizance.
3. The sole contention of the appellant in this Court is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having tried to shift the materials and their coming to the conclusion that no case prima facie has been made out against accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
4. On the basis of this statement made in the complaint, it was not open for the High Court to quash the proceedings against the respondent. Mr. Lalit appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contended that it was open even at that stage, for the High Court, to examine the prima facie material against the applicant who had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Magistrate so far as the applicant before the High Court is concerned.
5. Having examined the rival submissions and on examining the assertions made in the complaint and on scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings so far as accused Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao is concerned. The High Court can be justified in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclusion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. Obviously applying that standard it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
6. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to take up the proceed-
ings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
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