Md. Salauddin Vs. Sujit Dutt & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3317 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3317 of 2000)
Petitioner: Md. Salauddin
Respondent: Sujit Dutt & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3317 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3317 of 2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL/PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE CODE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 482, 438 – Powers under – Exercise of – Private com-plaint – FIR registered on complaint – Accused moving anticipa-tory bail – High Court calling case diary – Being satisfied about existence of material, refused to exercise power under Section 438 – Accused then arrested – For regular bail, again High Court was approached – Again case diary perused and bail refused – Then accused approaching High Court for quashing – This time proceed-ings quashed. Held that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only when there is abuse of process of law. When High Court perused and found material on earlier two occasions, it exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the FIR. Orders set aside. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashing the FIR is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. It transpires that on a complaint being filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the Magistrate directed that the said complaint be treated as an FIR and called upon the police to investigate into the offences alleged. While the matter was being investigated into, the accused approached the High Court for being granted anticipatory bail by invoking power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The learned Judge at that stage called for the case diary and being of the opinion that prima facie material exists did not think it proper to exercise power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The accused thereafter on being arrested moved regular appli-cation for bail and that bail application also came to the High Court. Even at that stage the High Court called for the case diary and was satisfied about the existence of prima facie materials and consequently refused to release the accused person on bail. Subsequent to the said order, the accused approached the High Court in filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the FIR should be quashed and the investigation should be stopped. Curiously the High Court was persuaded to accept the submission of the accused at that stage and by the impugned order the FIR has been quashed.
5. Apart from the fact that on two earlier occasions the High Court did consider the materials in the case diary and came to the conclusion that prima facie material exists, even on examin-ing the assertions made in the FIR and taking those assertions on its face value we cannot subscribe to the conclusion of the High Court that no offence can be said to have been made out. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when the court comes to the conclusion as otherwise it would be an abuse of the process of court. In the case in hand having examined the assertions made as well as the earlier orders of the High Court itself referred to by us, the conclusion is irresist-ible that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction in quashing the FIR and the investigation so far made. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Inves-tigating Agency to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
6. Needless to mention that our setting aside the impugned order of the High Court does not take away the right of the accused at any stage as is available to him under law.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashing the FIR is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. It transpires that on a complaint being filed before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, the Magistrate directed that the said complaint be treated as an FIR and called upon the police to investigate into the offences alleged. While the matter was being investigated into, the accused approached the High Court for being granted anticipatory bail by invoking power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The learned Judge at that stage called for the case diary and being of the opinion that prima facie material exists did not think it proper to exercise power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The accused thereafter on being arrested moved regular appli-cation for bail and that bail application also came to the High Court. Even at that stage the High Court called for the case diary and was satisfied about the existence of prima facie materials and consequently refused to release the accused person on bail. Subsequent to the said order, the accused approached the High Court in filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the FIR should be quashed and the investigation should be stopped. Curiously the High Court was persuaded to accept the submission of the accused at that stage and by the impugned order the FIR has been quashed.
5. Apart from the fact that on two earlier occasions the High Court did consider the materials in the case diary and came to the conclusion that prima facie material exists, even on examin-ing the assertions made in the FIR and taking those assertions on its face value we cannot subscribe to the conclusion of the High Court that no offence can be said to have been made out. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when the court comes to the conclusion as otherwise it would be an abuse of the process of court. In the case in hand having examined the assertions made as well as the earlier orders of the High Court itself referred to by us, the conclusion is irresist-ible that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction in quashing the FIR and the investigation so far made. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Inves-tigating Agency to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
6. Needless to mention that our setting aside the impugned order of the High Court does not take away the right of the accused at any stage as is available to him under law.
