Manoj Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Champa Devi (S), Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(With interim relief and office report), Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10137/2015, (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/04/2015 in CRMMO No. 230/2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla)

Disposition

dismissed

Judges

Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J
D.Y Chandrachud
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Acts

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
Article 136 of the Constitution

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns a challenge to an “impugned order” passed by a High Court. The matter reached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court heard counsel for the rival parties and examined the impugned order. The underlying dispute relates to the interpretation and application of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (including the Explanation to sub-section (1)), though the specific facts giving rise to the Section 125 proceedings are not stated in the provided text.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299	The Supreme Court’s consistent interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the Explanation under sub-section (1).	The Court noted that the High Court’s impugned order was based on this decision, reflecting the settled approach adopted by the Supreme Court.
Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt), (2000) 3 SCC 180	The Supreme Court’s consistent interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the Explanation under sub-section (1).	The Court observed that the High Court followed this precedent as part of the consistent view maintained by the Supreme Court over the last two decades.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court’s analysis was anchored in the fact that the High Court’s impugned order relied upon two prior decisions of the Supreme Court: Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M Ranganatha Bhatta and Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt). The Court stated that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the Explanation to sub-section (1), has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court for the last two decades, and that this consistent view was followed by the High Court.

On this basis, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s impugned order under Article 136.

The direct implication is that the High Court’s order remains in force. The opinion indicates that the dismissal was grounded in adherence to a long-standing, consistent Supreme Court interpretation of Section 125 CrPC, but it does not articulate any broader implications beyond refusing interference in this case, and it does not purport to set any new precedent.

Show full summary ...

Manoj Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Champa Devi (S)

1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.

2. Having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt), (2000) 3 SCC 180. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.

3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Manoj Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Champa Devi (S)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Manoj Kumar Petitioner(S) v. Champa Devi (S)

Comments