SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Rajiv Saxena and Ors.
Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2012 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 804 of 2011)
Decided On: 16.01.2012

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Sections 311 and 391–Rejection of application for summoning of approver–Delay in filing applications should not have been sole ground for rejecting appellants applications before High Court–Law casts duty upon court to arrive at truth by all lawful means–Section 391 is not limited to recall of a witness for further cross-examination with reference to his previous statement–Appeals allowed. (Para 18)

       Interpretation of Statute–Interpretation of a legal provision is always independent of facts of any given case–Even slightest difference in facts of two cases can make a world of difference on the question whether or not a statutory provision can be fairly and reasonably applied to it–Interpretation of a legal provision and its application to a set of facts are two different exercises requiring different approaches. (Para 24)

       (2008)15 SCC 652–Distinguished.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.C. No. 3420 of 2010 dated 1.11.2010.

3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences pleaded in the F.I.R. under Sections 498A, 496 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant had approached the High Court by filing the Criminal Misc.C. No. 3420 of 2010 and in that he had stated that parties have settled the matter and, therefore, the proceedings before the learned Magistrate need not be continued and the same requires to be quashed. The High Court, in the impugned judgment has observed that since the Respondent-wife, is not appearing before the High Court, the request of the Appellant cannot be granted.

4. This Court, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition had issued notices to the Respondents. Respondent-wife has entered appearance through her learned Counsel. She has also filed the counter affidavit. In that she states that the request of the Appellant may be granted.

5. The Respondent-wife is also present before the Court. She is agreeable for the request made by her husband.

6. In view of the above, the request of the Appellant is granted and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate in Case No. 31 of 2008 dated 16.6.2008, District South West, P.S.CAW Nanakpura, New Delhi are quashed. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top