Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Complaint and Process Issued by Magistrate 2. Pendency of Civil Proceedings and its Impact on Criminal Proceedings 3. Exercise of Inherent Powers by High Court u/s 482 CrPC Summary: 1. Quashing of Complaint and Process Issued by Magistrate: The appellant challenged the High Court's order which quashed her complaint and the Magistrate's order issuing process against the respondents for offences u/s 465, 468, 471, and 120B IPC. The High Court quashed the proceedings under its inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC, which the appellant contended was contrary to established legal principles. 2. Pendency of Civil Proceedings and its Impact on Criminal Proceedings: The appellant argued that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit was pending. The Supreme Court reiterated that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. It emphasized that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings are distinct, and the standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt," unlike in civil cases which are decided on probabilities. 3. Exercise of Inherent Powers by High Court u/s 482 CrPC: The Supreme Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. The Court cited several precedents, including R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, to illustrate the limited circumstances under which such powers can be invoked. The Court found that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant, as the allegations in the complaint did prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order. The trial was directed to proceed in accordance with the law and be decided on merits.
|