S.A. Nanjundeswara Vs. M/s. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3443 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3443 of 2000)
Petitioner: S.A. Nanjundeswara
Respondent: M/s. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3443 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3443 of 2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 23, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482 – Quashing of proceedings – When permissible – Com-plaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Proceedings quashed. Held that proceedings can be quashed only when statements taken on their face value do not make out an offence. High Court orders set aside. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the High Court quashing a complaint proceeding exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru-ments Act after examining the complaint the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. The accused Vera-lakshmi Gundu Rao assailed the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process by filing application in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the said order of taking cog-nizance.
3. The sole contention of the appellant in this Court is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having tried to shift the materials and their coming to the conclusion that no case prima facie has been made out against accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
4. On the basis of this statement made in the complaint, it was not open for the High Court to quash the proceedings against the respondent. Mr. Lalit appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contended that it was open even at that stage, for the High Court, to examine the prima facie material against the Applicant who had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Magistrate so far as the ap-plicant before the High Court is concerned.
5. Having examined the rival submissions and on examining the assertions made in the complaint and on scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings so far as accused Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao is concerned. The High Court can be justi-fied in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclu-sion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. Obviously applying that standard it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
6. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to take up the proceed-ings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the High Court quashing a complaint proceeding exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instru-ments Act after examining the complaint the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. The accused Vera-lakshmi Gundu Rao assailed the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process by filing application in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the said order of taking cog-nizance.
3. The sole contention of the appellant in this Court is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having tried to shift the materials and their coming to the conclusion that no case prima facie has been made out against accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
4. On the basis of this statement made in the complaint, it was not open for the High Court to quash the proceedings against the respondent. Mr. Lalit appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contended that it was open even at that stage, for the High Court, to examine the prima facie material against the Applicant who had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Magistrate so far as the ap-plicant before the High Court is concerned.
5. Having examined the rival submissions and on examining the assertions made in the complaint and on scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings so far as accused Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao is concerned. The High Court can be justi-fied in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclu-sion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. Obviously applying that standard it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
6. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to take up the proceed-ings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.
