- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Maninder Kaur v. Rajinder Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Special leave was granted in an appeal arising from an order dated March 22, 1991 of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14319 of 1991.
The appellant filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hoshiarpur, alleging offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused respondents and two other persons. In support, the appellant examined herself, her father Kartar Singh, and a neighbour Dasondhi Ram. The Magistrate, finding sufficient ground for proceeding, issued process against the accused respondents. The other two persons could not be served and were proclaimed absconders, stated to be from Uttar Pradesh with unknown whereabouts.
Instead of facing the pre-charge stage enquiry, the accused respondents approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting the complaint was false and relying, inter alia, on the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC made during investigation in which she named other individuals as culprits. The High Court accepted these contentions and quashed the complaint. The appellant then brought the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, at the stage after the Magistrate has issued process upon finding sufficient ground to proceed, the High Court could quash the complaint proceedings under Section 482 CrPC by reassessing the sufficiency of grounds and relying on the complainant’s Section 164 CrPC statement and other asserted probabilities.
- Whether the evidentiary value of the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and alleged investigative deficiencies were matters to be evaluated at the pre-charge enquiry stage and/or at trial rather than at the initial stage in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Accused Respondents' Arguments (before the High Court as recorded)
- The complaint against them was false.
- The prosecutrix had given a statement under Section 164 CrPC during investigation naming two absconders (Karan and Badama) and one Chhotu as culprits, which was said to negate the accused respondents’ culpability.
- Other asserted “inherent” probabilities were relied upon to disbelieve the appellant’s version.
Appellant's Submissions (before the Supreme Court as recorded)
- She contended that grave injustice had been done and asserted she had been under pressure when the police made her give the Section 164 CrPC statement.
- She also stated she was under pressure even while prosecuting the appeal from the accused respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the Magistrate had issued process after recording the complainant and two supporting witnesses and forming the opinion that there was sufficient ground to proceed. At that procedural stage, the Court held, it was beyond the High Court’s power to assess the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds for proceeding so as to quash the complaint under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court further reasoned that the value to be attached to the appellant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was a matter to be examined at the enquiry at the pre-charge stage and, if a charge were to be framed, possibly at trial. Similarly, the steps taken during investigation could be commented upon at those later stages.
On the facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings at the initial stage, characterizing such interference as “strangulat[ing] it at its inception.” The Court emphasized that the accused respondents’ rights were preserved under law at the stage of enquiry and at trial, if it eventually occurred.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED; IMPUGNED HIGH COURT ORDER SET ASIDE. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing the complaint and directed the Magistrate to proceed further in accordance with law.
The direct consequence is that the criminal complaint stands revived and will continue before the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hoshiarpur. The complainant (in person) and the accused respondents (through counsel) were directed to appear before the Magistrate on October 4, 1991. The opinion records no broader implications beyond restoring the proceedings; no new precedent is stated to have been set.
Order
1. Special leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 22, 1991 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14319 of 1991.
3. The appellant filed a complaint against the accused respondents and two others for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before a Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hoshiarpur. In support of her complaint the appellant, besides herself, examined her father Kartar Singh and a neighbour Dasondhi Ram as witnesses. The learned Magistrate issued process against the accused-respondents for he was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. The two others afore-referred to could not be served and were proclaimed absconders. Statedly they came from the State of Uttar Pradesh and their whereabouts were not known. The accused respondents, however, were served. Instead of facing the enquiry at the pre-charge stage, they straightaway moved the High Court invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that the complaint filed against them was false, that the prosecutrix had made a statement before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation in which she had named those two absconders, Karan and Badama besides one Chhotu as the culprits belying the culpability of the accused respondents. Otherwise as well some probabilities statedly of an inherent nature were pressed into service to disbelieve the word of the appellant, which appealed to the High Court and the complaint was quashed. Thus this appeal.
4. The appellant in person has pleaded before us that grave injustice has been done to her cause and that she was under pressure in the past when she was made by the police to make a statement before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and was under pressure even now from the accused-respondents in prosecuting this appeal. That is the way she would put her case. We on our own sought assistance from Mr R.K Garg, learned counsel who was present in the Court and he willingly has assisted us. The matter is plain and simple as on the statement of complainant and her two witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding in the complaint and he issued process against the accused-respondents. Now at that stage to judge the sufficiency or otherwise of the ground for proceeding was beyond the power of the High Court so as to quash the proceedings under Section 482, CrPC. The value to be attached to the statement made by the appellant under Section 164, CrPC was to be examined at the enquiry at the pre-charge stage and possibly at the trial, if charge was to be framed. The steps in investigation could also be commented upon likewise at the said two stages. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings at the initial stage so as to strangulate it at its inception. The accused-respondents have all their rights preserved under law at the stage of the enquiry as also at the trial, if there is one, eventually. For this reason we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to proceed further in the complaint in accordance with law. The complainant, in person, and the accused-respondents through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the learned Magistrate on October 4, 1991. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Alert