Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G. L. OZA, JJ.
A.K. SUBBAIAH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1987{From the Judgment and Order dated September 8 1986 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. Revision Petition No. 482 of 1986}, decided on August 28, 1987
Advocates appeared :
L.R. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellants;
M. Veerappa and A.K. Panda, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Held, the High Court is expected to see in a revision of this nature against the issue of process is as to whether the complaint and the papers filed alongwith the complaint are sufficient to justify the order passed by the learned trial court by issuing process against the petitioners accused persons. It was contended by the learned counsel that the Court is not expected to see anything further nor there is any material to come to a conclusion as to whether the prosecution has been launched fairly or at the instigation or under the influence of some other person. It was contended that in fact these questions may be before the court below when evidence is recorded what the court primarily is concerned to see is that the facts alleged in the complaint whether prima facie constitutes an offence calling for a trial and if the court is so satisfied it issues process. The High Court in revision under sec. 401" read with sec. 397 only is concerned to see those papers, which were before the court below. Admittedly these two respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were not parties before the court below and the High Court was right in deleting their names from the proceedings. (Para 8)
Further held, apparently this sub-clause contemplates a situation where a person may not be an accused person before the court below but or who might have been discharged and therefore if the revisional court after exercising jurisdiction under section 401 wants to pass an order to the prejudice of such a person, it is necessary that that person should be given an opportunity of hearing but it does not contemplate any contingency of hearing of any person who is neither party in the proceedings in the court below not is expected at any stage even after the revision to be joined as party. Learned counsel for the appellant was not in a position to contend that even if any contention of the appellant is accepted and the High. Court accepts the revision petition as it is there will be any situation where an order may be passed against these two respondents or they may be joined as parties to the proceedings. Reference to section 401, clause 2. is of no consequence so far as these two respondents are concerned. (Para 12)
Consequently held, in the light of the discussions above therefore it is clear that the question about anyone else being instrumental in getting the prosecution launched or questions which are foreign to be considered in a revision where the issue of process is being challenged and therefore the further question as to whether the party against whom an allegation is made is or is not a necessary party in the proceedings also is of no avail. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court as we have discussed earlier clearly indicates that the High Court is only expected to see the legality, correctness or the propriety of the order, which is an order of issue of process, these things could only be seen by looking into the, complaint and the accompanying papers and evidence if any which were before the court below. In our opinion, the High Court was right in deleting the names of the two respondents. (Para IS)
JUDGMENT
OZA, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who are the accused persons in a complaint filed by the State Government before the Principal Sessions Court, Bangalore. It is alleged that this complaint is filed by the State Government under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was filed by the State Government on the basis of a sanction granted by the State Government under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as one of the persons defamed is the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka.
3. The trial court after the filing of the complaint took cognizance of the matter and issued process against the petitioners who were the accused persons before the court below. Against this issue of process, these petitioners filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Karnataka seeking the relief of quashing of the order directing issue of process and also the quashing of proceedings pending in the court below. The revision which was filed in the High Court was filed under Sections 397 and 401. In addition to the State Government, the petitioners joined respondent 2, the Director General of Police, State of Karnataka and also respondent 3, the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Shri Ramakrishna Hegde.
4. It is alleged that when the revision petition was filed in the High Court, it was heard for admission and was admitted and orders were passed for issue of notices to the respondents. But by the impugned order the High Court directed deletion of the names of respondents 2 and 3 holding that they are not necessary parties to the proceedings and it is against this order that the special leave was filed and hence this appeal.
5. The order of the High Court indicates that the matter was taken up on being mentioned by either of the counsel in the matter as it reads :
This CRP coming on for being spoken to the court made the following order :
Respondents 2 and 3 in this petition, who are not parties to the complaint, are not necessary parties to the proceedings. Hence, respondents 2 and 3 in this petition are deleted.
Sd/- Judge
An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that once the process was issued in the revision by the High Court after admission it is curious that this matter was taken up. Although it is not clearly alleged that this order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, admittedly they were heard. The main grievance appears to be that it was suddenly taken up for hearing on being mentioned. This is not unusual and there is no grievance that the petitioners had no hearing. Under these circumstances no grievance could be made to this part of the order.
6. It is not disputed that in the revision petition itself the relief claimed by the petitioners were :
Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Honble Court be pleased to call for the records and a return from the respondents and-
(i) Quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated June 30, 1986 bearing Order No. HD 1610 PCC 86, Annexure E.
(ii) Quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners as per the summons Annexure F in C.C. No. 62/86 on the file of the Principal Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs.
A perusal of these prayers made in the revision petition clearly indicate that what was challenged before the High Court was the order dated June 30, 1986 by which the process was issued against the petitioners and further the quashing of the proceedings instituted before the court below i.e. Principal Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City which was Criminal Complaint No. 62 of 1986. It is therefore clear that the only challenge before the High Court was to the proceedings on the basis of the complaint and the relief sought was quashing of these proceedings.
7. It is clear that High Court exercises jurisdiction under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
