Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1153 OF 2004
Subrata Das …Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an order
passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant has
th
been dismissed and an order dated 20 March, 2003 passed
in Criminal Revision No.229 of 2002 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Dhanbad upheld. The High Court has taken
the view that since two Courts below had concurrently held
2
that a prima facie case under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC
and Sections 3(i)(x) and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had
been made out against the petitioner (appellant herein) it
was not a fit case in which the proceedings before the
Magistrate could be quashed. The controversy arises in the
following backdrop:
2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent
No.2 herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad
against the appellant and one Shri D.B. Raman, Manager of
TISCO Jamadoba Colliery, district Dhanbad alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
506 and 384 IPC and Sections 3(1) & (2) (vii) of the
Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Statements of the complainant and
three other witnesses, Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna
Mandal were recorded by the Court in support of the
complaint. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, came to
3
the conclusion that none of the allegations made against the
accused were proved to be correct to call for action on the
basis thereof. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his case, the complainant
th
filed a revision before the 5 Additional Sessions Judge,
Dhanbad who examined the matter at length including the
evidence on record and came to the conclusion that a prima
facie case had indeed been made out by the complainant
against the accused. The order passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate was accordingly set aside and the matter
remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for
“reviewing the same afresh” after going into the details of
evidence on record and the relevant provisions of law. A
revision was then filed by the accused including the
appellant herein before the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi, in which it was, inter alia, contended that since the
Chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to review his own
th
orders the direction issued by the 5 Additional Sessions
4
Judge, Dhanbad, was legally erroneous. The High Court,
th
however, clarified that the directions issued by the 5
Additional Sessions Judge was a direction for a further
enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
under Section 398 Cr.P.C.
4. When the matter went back to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate he recorded the depositions of the complainant
as also the witnesses afresh and came to the conclusion that
a prima facie case under the provisions referred to above
has been made out against the accused persons. Summons
were accordingly directed to be issued to the accused
persons. Aggrieved whereof the appellant filed a revision
petition before the Additional Sessions Judge which failed
and was dismissed, inter alia, holding that the material on
record before the Court below did make out a prima facie
case against the accused persons and that there was no
legal infirmity in the order directing issue of summons to the
accused persons. The appellant preferred a petition under
5
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Jharkhand,
Ranchi which was dismissed by the High Court by the order
impugned in this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, but find
no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. It is
fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this
Court that the power vested in the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing an on-going
investigation, complaint or other proceedings only in cases
where either there is legal power to the continuance of the
proceedings such as the absence of a sanction wherever
required or where averments made in the complaint or first
information report even if accepted on their face value do
not constitute an offence or where there is no legal evidence
to support the charge made against the accused. It is also
fairly settled that the powers vested in the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and that
the Court cannot be called upon to appreciate the available
6
evidence or material with a view to find out whether the
charge leveled against the accused stands proved.
6. See Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors.
AIR 1999 SC 2554, State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal & Ors.
2004 Crl.L.J. 3866, State of Karnataka v. M.
Devendrappa and Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Central
Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan 2008 (4) SCC
471, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. , 1992
Suppl. 1 SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
(1960) 3 SCR 388.
7. A plain reading of the complaint filed by the
complainant in the instant case makes out a case against
the accused. Not only that the depositions of the three
witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his
complaint also support the allegations made in the
complaint. The Magistrate was, therefore, justified in taking
cognizance against the appellant and the co-accused. The
7
Revisional Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was
also correct in holding that a case for issue of process has
been made out. Such being the position the High Court
committed no error in declining to interfere under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. nor is there any reason for us much less a
compelling one to take a view different from the one taken
by the High Court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in recalling
the witnesses and examining them afresh after the matter
was remanded back to him for further enquiry. It was
contended that the direction for a further enquiry could not
be taken to mean that the Magistrate had to record afresh
the depositions of the witnesses already examined before
him. In as much as the Magistrate had done so in the
present case he committed a mistake that was sufficient to
vitiate the order passed by him. Support was drawn by the
learned counsel from a Single Bench’s decision of the High
8
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Gurdial Singh v. Kartar
Singh and Ors . 1980 Crl. L.J. 955.
9. The matter as noticed by us earlier had been remanded
back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold a further
enquiry. That direction did not necessarily oblige the
Magistrate to record any further evidence in the case. The
nature of the inquiry was in the discretion of the Magistrate
which may or may not have included recording of further
evidence on behalf of the complainant. The Magistrate could
without recording any further evidence in the matter
reappraise the averments made in the complaint and the
material already on record to determine whether a prima
facie case was made out against the accused persons. In as
much as the Magistrate in the instant case summoned the
witnesses and examined them afresh, he may have gone
beyond what was legally necessary to do but that is no
reason to hold that the recording of evidence by the
Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry directed by the
High Court would vitiate the proceedings before him or the
9
conclusion drawn on the basis of any such enquiry. So long
as the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case had
been made out, he was competent to issue summons to the
accused. All told, the alleged error sought to be pointed out
by the appellant is not of a kind that would persuade us to
interfere with the proceedings at this stage. In the result this
appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
……………………………J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
……………………………J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi
October 22, 2010