Vitoori Pradeep Kumar Vs. Kaisula Dharmaiah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 325/2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3350/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3350/1999)
Petitioner: Vitoori Pradeep Kumar
Respondent: Kaisula Dharmaiah & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 325/2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3350/1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3350/1999)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 04, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 227, 228, 482 – Charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code – Discharge sought on grounds of Civil Suit pending – Said suit for specific performance – High Court quashing criminal proceedings. Held that there was no justification. Appeal allowed.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The order of learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 602/1999 allowing the revision filed by the accused persons on the ground that the criminal case cannot proceed because of the pendency of a civil suit is the subject matter of the challenge in this Court. As it appears, before the learned Magistrate, an application for discharge was filed, but the Magistrate was of the opinion that there exist sufficient material to proceed with the criminal case and, therefore, prayer for discharge was rejected. Accused then moved the High Court and High Court by the impugned order has quashed the criminal proceedings. The impugned proceedings is in relation to an allegation of an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The so-called civil suit is a suit for specific performance. We see no justification on the part of the High Court under such circumstances to direct that the criminal proceedings should be quashed. More so, there is an earlier order of the High Court itself. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the criminal proceedings should be continued. We make it clear that any observation made, will not bind the Magistrate.
3. The appeal is disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order of learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 602/1999 allowing the revision filed by the accused persons on the ground that the criminal case cannot proceed because of the pendency of a civil suit is the subject matter of the challenge in this Court. As it appears, before the learned Magistrate, an application for discharge was filed, but the Magistrate was of the opinion that there exist sufficient material to proceed with the criminal case and, therefore, prayer for discharge was rejected. Accused then moved the High Court and High Court by the impugned order has quashed the criminal proceedings. The impugned proceedings is in relation to an allegation of an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The so-called civil suit is a suit for specific performance. We see no justification on the part of the High Court under such circumstances to direct that the criminal proceedings should be quashed. More so, there is an earlier order of the High Court itself. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the criminal proceedings should be continued. We make it clear that any observation made, will not bind the Magistrate.
3. The appeal is disposed of.
