IMPORTANT POINTS
If the State fails to file appeal against conviction, the party having bona fide connection with the cause of action and aggrieved by the order of the court would have locus standi to maintain an appeal.
Duty of Court under Section 482, CrPC is limited to finding out from the materials on record whether the alleged offence is made out or not and also whether to proceed further with the case.
Parameters for exercising power u/s 482 is laid down in (2013) 3 SCC 330.

Headnote:(a) Constitution iof India – Article 136 – Appeal – Locus standi – Only Person aggrieved or affected has the standing before the court or a right to move the court for seeking justice – Subsequently Supreme Court allowing any person, not related to the cause of action, to seek justice for those who could not approach themselves – Offence is a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State – State failing, the party having bonafide connection with the cause of action and aggrieved by the order of the court – Cannot be left at the mercy of the State – Held, appellants have locus standi to maintain instant appeal. (Para 23, 25)
       (1980) 3 SCC 141; (2003) 12 SCC 395; (2004) 11 SCC 585; (2008) 17 SCC 257 – Relied upon
       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Duty of Court – Limited to finding out from the materials on record whether the alleged offence is made out or not – Whether to proceed further with the case. (Para 25)
       1992 Supp(1) SCC 335;
       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Parameters for exercising power u/s 482 already laid down in (2013) 3 SCC 330 – High Court quashing order of cognizance – Without appreciating the material placed before it in correct perspective – Also ignoring certain important facts like statements u/s 164 CrPC – High Court also failing to take into consideration the case relates to murder –Criminal proceedings ought not be interfered lightly – High Court exceeding its jurisdiction. (Para 27, 28)
       (2013) 3 SCC 330 – Relied upon
       (2012) 1 SCC 680; (2001) 3 SCC 462; 2008 Cri. L.J. 995 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       On 29.03.2008, the informant-Mukhtar went to the house of his relative at village-Navdega and stayed there. On 30.03.2008, at about 12.00 noon, his uncle Md. Hasim informed him on telephone that his wife’s condition was serious and she was being taken to Singhia for treatment. When he reached his house he saw the dead body of his wife.
       After filing of the charge sheet by the police against Md. Hasim, Md. Noor Hasan, Md. Safique and Jhothi Sada, Mukhtar started threatening the witnesses. On 17.10.2008, he reached the house of appellant no. 1 with pistol and dagger. FIR No. 104/08 was registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Singhia Police Station.
       The learned CJM took cognizance under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC against Mukhtar and other accused-persons.
       Respondent nos. 2 to 9 approached the High Court by preferring Crl. Misc. petition for quashing the order of learned CJM dated 10.11.2008which has been allowed.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court exceeded its juriasdiction.
       Result: Appeal allowed, matter remitted back to CJM.

JUDGMENT :

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2010 in Crl. Misc. No. 5777 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby it allowed the said criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent nos.2 to 9 herein, by setting aside the cognizance order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Bihar in Singhia Police Case No.37/2008 and quashed the criminal prosecution.

3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.03.2008, the informant-Mukhtar went to the house of his relative at village-Navdega and stayed there. On 30.03.2008, at about 12.00 noon, his uncle Md. Hasim informed him on telephone that his wife’s condition was serious and she was being taken to Singhia for treatment. Mukhtar was asked to reach Singhia. It is alleged by the informant that on reaching Singhia, he neither found his wife nor his uncle. On enquiry from his uncle, he was informed about the death of his wife. Thereafter, he reached his house and saw the dead body of his wife. His uncle disclosed him that his wife-Tamanna Khatoon (since deceased) had gone to maize field wherein she was found lying with her mouth and nose tied with her dupatta. She was spotted by one Hira Sada (PW-2), who was returning with her daughter. Upon hearing the noise made by the deceased she raised alarm and upon hearing the same informant’s uncle-Md. Hasim along with others reached the spot and took Tamanna Khatoon to Singhia for treatment. She died on the way to Singhia. On 30.03.2008 FIR was lodged by Mukhtar, husband of the deceased against Md. Raju and Md. Halim @ Mangnu-appellant no.2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

4. During investigation, many witnesses deposed before the Judicial Magistrate, Rosera under Section 164 of the CrPC wherein it has been alleged that Mukhtar, husband of the deceased has killed his wife.

5. On 30.09.2008 charge sheet no.111/2008 in respect of FIR No. 37/2008 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Rosera by the police against Md. Hasim, Md. Noor Hasan, Md. Safique and Jhothi Sada.

6. After filing of the charge sheet, Mukhtar started threatening the witnesses. With a view to threaten the appellant no.1 on 17.10.2008, he reached his house with pistol and dagger. The appellant no.1 raised hue and cry and upon hearing the same, co- villagers caught Mukhtar with arms, after a chase. FIR No. 104/08 was registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Singhia Police Station.

7. On 31.10.2008, a supplementary charge sheet no.126/2008, in respect of FIR No. 37/2008 was filed before the learned CJM by the police against Md. Mukhtar @ Munna, Md. Nazre Alam and Md. Farukh.

8. The learned CJM after considering the material placed before him vide order dated 10.11.2008.took cognizance under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC against Mukhtar and other accused-persons.

9. Aggrieved by the cognizance order passed by the learned CJM in PS Case No. 37/2008, respondent nos. 2 to 9 approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna by preferring Crl. Misc. No. 5777/2009 under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the order of learned CJM dated 10.11.2008.

10. The High Court by its order dated 08.12.2010 allowed the said petition by setting aside the cognizance order passed by the learned CJM and also quashed the criminal prosecution. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein, who are interested private parties, have filed this appeal urging various grounds.

11. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the FIR and the charge sheet establish a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 287

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV. GOPALA GOWDA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.Amanullah and Anr. – AppellantsVs.State of Bihar and Ors. – RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 299 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2866 of 2011)Decided on : 12-04-2016

Cases Referred (8)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
Amanullah and Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2866 of 2011)
Decided on : 12-04-2016