2019 (4) TMI 1948 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction of shop - tenancy - contradictions in the statement of witnesses on the point of occurrence - Whether the Judicial Magistrate was right in holding that a prima facie case is made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323 379 read with Section 34 IPC so as to call upon them to face the trial on merits or whether the High Court was right in holding that no prima facie case has been made out against respondent Nos.2 and 3? HELD THAT - First error is that the High Court did not examine the case with a view to find out as to whether the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out the offences falling under Sections 323 379 read with Section 34 IPC or not - Instead the High Court in Para 6 gave importance to the fact that since there was a dispute pending between the parties in the Civil Court in relation to a shop as being landlord and tenant it is essentially a civil dispute between the parties - This approach of the High Court is faulty. The High Court failed to see that mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not - The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323 379 read with Section 34 IPC then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizance is made out or not the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question the impugned order is legally unsustainable. The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence - the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not legally sustainable and hence it deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against quashing of complaint under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC by High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court's decision to quash a complaint filed by the appellant against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had quashed the complaint based on the reasoning that the dispute between the parties appeared to be a civil one, and there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the alleged offenses. The Supreme Court found two errors in the High Court's decision.

Firstly, the High Court failed to assess whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie made out the offenses under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC. Instead, the High Court emphasized the civil dispute aspect between the parties, which the Supreme Court deemed as a faulty approach. The Supreme Court highlighted that the mere pendency of a civil suit does not negate the possibility of criminal offenses being committed, and the focus should have been on the specific allegations in the complaint.

Secondly, the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by delving into the contradictions in witness statements during the Section 482 proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that the evaluation of witness statements is a matter for the trial stage, not the quashing stage. Therefore, the High Court's consideration of witness statements was deemed premature and outside the scope of the Section 482 proceedings.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and reinstated the order of the Judicial Magistrate, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented by the parties. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial should be conducted strictly in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court in their respective orders.