Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.

The facts of the case are such that the 1st petitioner is the husband of 2nd respondent. On certain allegations that the petitioners subjected the 2nd respondent to harassment in connection with demand for dowry, FIR was registered in relation to offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 and 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w section 34 of IPC. Investigation was taken up and charge sheet was been filed. This instant petition was filed under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the charge sheet.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arjun Rego submitted that if the entire charge sheet which is based on statements of witnesses is considered, it can be said that no offence against the petitioners is made out.

The Court observed that though under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. charge sheet can be quashed, the said jurisdiction cannot be invoked for quashing the charge sheet by appreciating the evidence. It is a settled principle that while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., evidence cannot be appreciated as it lies within the domain of the Trial Court.

The Court held “I do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” [Pradeep Moparthy v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 2860 of 2021, decided on 15-12-2021]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances

For respondent: Mr. Rohith BJ

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: Sashikant Mishra J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceeding due to inordinate delay on the part of investigating authorities.

The facts of the case are such that an FIR was lodged against the present petitioner on by the then Tahasildar, Chhendipada before the Officer-in- Charge, Chhendipada Police Station leading to registration of case for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 447/379/188/294/535/506 of Penal Code, 1860 i.e. IPC. The said case is presently pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Chhendipada. Final Report was submitted in the case after more than 15 years. The inaction of the investigating agency complied with inordinate delay was cited as a ground by the petitioner for quashment of the FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings in the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner M/s. Anirudha Das, A Das,S.C. Mishra, A. Das and A. Sahoo submitted that that continuance of the case without Final Form being submitted for as long as 15 years by itself is an abuse of the process of Court. It is further argued that the petitioner is presently aged about 72 years and has been going through tremendous mental strain and anxiety because of pendency of the criminal case and the uncertainty attached to it. Since right to speedy trial is also a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was contended that inaction of the investigating agency for an inordinately long period of time directly violates such right, for which the proceedings need to be quashed.

Counsel for respondents Mr. P. K. Maharaj admitting that the Final Form was not filed for as long as 15 years, however, contends that no time limit being prescribed for conclusion of a criminal proceeding, mere delay in submission of Final Form or Final Report, as the case may be, cannot be a ground to quash the Proceedings.

The Court observed that this is a case of a man against whom an FIR was lodged and investigation continued for as long as 15 years to ultimately end in a Final Report being filed. One can only imagine the stress that the petitioner would have undergone during all these years with the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over his head.

The Court further observed that pendency of a criminal proceeding, irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged, are sufficient to cause concern, anxiety and apprehension in the mind of the accused not to speak of the expenses that he may have to incur in defending himself. What is a matter of greater concern to note is that there is no explanation whatsoever from the side of the investigating agency as to the reasons for non-completion of investigation for all these years.

The Court also took note of the fact that save and except the offence under Section 506, all the other offences alleged to have been committed by the accused namely, Sections 447/379/188/294/353 of IPC, are punishable with imprisonment for terms ranging from one year to three years at the most. So even if a Final Form had been submitted, the concerned Magistrate would have been hard put to take cognizance keeping in view the provisions under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. However, that is besides the point. The crux of the matter is inordinate delay in completion of the investigation.

The Court held that the inaction of the investigating agency to conclude the investigation for as long as 15 years, that too, without offering even a semblance of explanation is a direct affront to the cherished principle of right to speedy trial ingrained in the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court held this is a fit case to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to put an end to the fiasco, once for all, moreso, as the investigation has ended in Final Report True being submitted.

The Court also observed that the higher police authorities should take note of such inaction on the part of the investigating officer (s) and pass appropriate orders to be followed by all concerned so as to prevent the same from recurring in future.[Binod Bihari Shetty v. State of Orissa, CrlMC No. 112 of 2020, decided on 03-01-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: The Court recently addressed a writ petition for quashment of a previous order that had been passed by the Joint Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation owing to which the premises of the petitioners had been cordoned off by way of the powers vested under Section 8(1) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act, 1988.

The facts stated briefly are that the petitioners had raised construction of a building in accordance with the municipal corporation’s plan at a certain area in Jammu. The petitioners had got permission of a part of the premise to be used for commercial purposes. But subsequently, the demolition of the premises was ordered by a competent authority after a notice under Section 7(1) of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act was issued to the petitioners for the misuse of the premise for commercial purposes. Despite the petitioners having filed their reply to the notice, the Joint Commissioner after considering it, directed for the premise to be sealed under Section 8 of the J&K Control of Building Operations Act.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that resorting to Section 8 was in itself an action that was per se without jurisdiction as this provision can only be invoked when a work is in progress or has been completed and that it cannot be invoked against the user of the building. The petitioner’s counsel also contended that Section 8 shall be invoked only to prevent a dispute on the nature and extent of construction. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the proceedings had been invoked under Section 7 of the Act and hence consequently, Section 8 could also be invoked.

The Court held that a reading of the provisions make it clear that Section 8 of the Act can only be resorted to if the construction is in progress and not when it’s a case of illegal use of the building by its owner. The Court also noted that the validity of the order passed in the proceeding under Section 7 of the Act was still pending wherein the Tribunal had passed an interim order demanding for status quo to be maintained and hence, the respondents invoking Section 8 per se was in itself a contravention and without jurisdiction. Thus, the Court quashed the petition. [S. Lt. Col. (retd) G.C. Raina v. Municipal Corporation, Jammu, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 697 , order dated 16.11.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In the instant case filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J. held that in cases related to demand of dowry, general and vague allegations cannot be treated as sufficient material to prosecute the other relatives of the husband who otherwise, do not have anything to do with the family affairs of the complainant. It was observed that in order to prosecute the other relatives in a dowry case there must be some specific allegations against them.

The second respondent filed a case of harassment for dowry against her husband and her in- laws. however she also implicated her husband’s near relatives i.e. elder brother-in-law and his wife etc. The present application was filed by the relatives of husband of second respondent claiming that they were falsely implicated merely because they are the near relatives of the accused husband. It was further submitted that no specific allegations have been made against them and only vague and omnibus allegations have been made in order to pressurize the accused husband. As these relatives of husband stand on different footing, therefore they should not be compelled to face the trial of Court unless any specific allegations have been made against them.

Considering the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Monju Roy v. State of West Bengal, (2015) 13 SCC 693, the Court observed that it would not be correct to compel the applicants who are the near relatives of accused husband to face the agony of criminal prosecution on vague allegations under. The Court also stated that all general allegations leveled by the second respondent on the applicants appear to be indistinct with her only intention being to somehow prosecute and defame them. Therefore it is a clear case of over-implication on near relatives of the husband. Thus, charge-sheet and criminal prosecution of the applicants was quashed. [Sandeep Singh Bais v. State of M.P., 2017 SCC OnLine MP 394, decided on 9-03-2017]

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Dealing with a pivotal question as to whether the High Court while refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to interfere in an application for quashment of the investigation, can restrain the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons during the course of investigation, the Court said that this kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly and has no sanction in law.

Stating that such direction “amounts” to an order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision, the bench of Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ said that the court cannot issue a blanket order restraining arrest and it can only issue an interim order and the interim order must also conform to the requirement of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed.

It was held that the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint. The Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation.  The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 23, decided on 06.01.2017]