9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (4) TMI 365 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the accused committed the offence or has reason to believe to have committed the offence and the evidence available is sufficient to prove the offence and to submit his report to the competent Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence? Whether the chargesheets are vitiated by the alleged mala fides on the part of either of the complainant R.K. Singh or the Investigating Officer G.N.Sharma? Held that - It cannot be considered that this court laid down as a preposition of law that in every case the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the basis of allegation and exercise of the power under s.482 or Art. 226 to quash the proceedings or the charge-sheet. The learned Judges have committed gravest errors of law in quashing the F.I.R. and Charge-sheets. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie offence. 2. Bias and mala fide actions of the informant and investigating officer. 3. Validity of the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings. Analysis: 1. Prima Facie Offence: The Supreme Court found that the allegations in the FIR and police reports, if taken as correct, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the respondents. The High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings based on its appreciation of documents and affidavits produced by the respondents, which were not part of the police reports. The Court emphasized that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts, and the High Court should not have assumed jurisdiction to put an end to the process of investigation and trial. 2. Bias and Mala Fide Actions: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's findings of bias and mala fide actions on the part of the informant R.K. Singh and the investigating officer G.N. Sharma. The Court noted that there was no material to show that the informant or investigating officer had any personal animosity against the respondents. The Court emphasized that the question of mala fide exercise of power assumes significance only when the criminal prosecution is initiated on extraneous considerations and for an unauthorized purpose. The Court found no evidence to support the High Court's conclusion that the FIR and investigation were vitiated by mala fide actions. 3. Validity of Sanction: The Supreme Court held that the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 15-A of the Essential Commodities Act was valid. The sanctioning authority had taken into consideration the case diary and other relevant materials before granting the sanction. The Court noted that the sanction order need not contain detailed reasons, but it must show that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant material and circumstances of the case. The Court found no evidence to support the High Court's finding that the sanction was vitiated by non-application of mind. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for assuming extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution at a stage when the Special Judge was seized of the matter and had reserved orders on the question of cognizance. The Court emphasized that at a stage when the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate, the High Court should discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings. The Court found that the High Court acted with patent illegality in quashing the FIR and the prosecution against the respondents. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the criminal justice process to proceed without undue interference and highlighted the role of the judiciary in complementing the investigatory functions of the police.
|
