Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1480
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
A.B. Asha - Appellant
Versus
H.S. Basava Rajappa - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2016 (Arising from SLP(Crl.) No. 1197 of 2015)
Decided On : 12-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, Advocate for M/s S-legal Associates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Girish Ananthamurthy, Advocate for Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, AOR.
The importance of not overlooking a crime lightly and the necessity of following the correct procedure for criminal trials.
Headnote:
Marriage - Criminal Proceedings - Setting aside of conviction and remand for denovo trial
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from marrying another person. Despite the injunction, the respondent allegedly married the other person. The respondent was convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court set aside the conviction considering the elapsed time since the marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings cannot be set aside lightly and that a crime cannot be overlooked easily. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for a denovo trial in accordance with the procedure for warrants cases.
Issues: The issues involved the setting aside of the conviction and the appropriate procedure for the criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be set aside lightly and that a crime cannot be overlooked easily. It also highlighted the importance of following the correct procedure for criminal trials.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court for denovo trial in accordance with the procedure for warrants cases.
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
3. It is not a matter of dispute, that the marriage between the appellant (A.B. Asha) before this Court, and the respondent - H.S. Basava Rajappa, was solemnized on 11.8.1998. The marriage was consummated, whereupon it is alleged, that the respondent started having an affair with one Parvathamma. Realising that the respondent may marry the said Parvathamma, the appellant filed a suit bearing O.S. No. 37/2000 seeking a temporary injunction, for restraining the respondent from marrying the said Parvathamma.
4. The injunction was granted. Despite the above restraint order, the respondent allegedly married with the said Parvathamma on 16.2.2001. It is therefore, that the appellant preferred a complaint against the respondent - H.S. Basava Rajappa (as accused no.1), and the said Parvathamma (as accused no.2). In the procedure adopted by the Magistrate, rather than proceeding with the matter as a warrants case, it was determined as a summons case.
5. Realising the above mistake, a denovo trial was initiated at the behest of the Magistrate himself. Despite having done so, the procedure contemplated for a warrants case, was not adopted.
6. The respondent - accused no. 1 was convicted, for having committed an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the trial Court, the matter eventually reached the High Court through Criminal Revision Petition No. 83 of 2012. During the hearing of the aforesaid criminal revision petition, the High Court taking into consideration that thirteen years' had elapsed after the respondent had married Parvathamma, while allowing the criminal revision petition, and setting aside the order of conviction, did not order fresh proceedings, in consonance with the procedure postulated for warrants cases.
8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we are of the view, that the criminal proceedings cannot be set aside as lightly has been done by the High Court. A crime cannot be overlooked as easily as has been done by the High Court.
9. We accordingly hereby set aside the impugned order, and remand the matter to the trial Court for denovo trial, in consonance with the procedure postulated for warrants case.
10. The instant criminal appeal is allowed accordingly.
