1. Appeal against High Court order quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an offence under Section 302 IPC. (Para 4 , 8 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Manik B. – Petitioner
Versus
Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No............of 2023 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 2924 of 2023]
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Thasmitha Muthanna
For the Respondents: R. Basant, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Ramesh Allanki, Aruna Gupta, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, V.N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Varun Varma
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shekhar G. Devasa, Manish Tiwari, Thasmitha Muthanna
For the Respondents: R. Basant, Dama Seshadri Naidu, Ramesh Allanki, Aruna Gupta, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, V.N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Varun Varma
Important Points
Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of witness statements. Its power to quash proceedings is limited to instances where, taking the prosecution's case at face value, no case is made out.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing proceedings - High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to conduct a mini-trial - The court emphasized that at this stage, the focus should be on whether a case is made out based on the prosecution's materials and not on the credibility of witnesses. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 9)
(B) Testimony reliability - The determination of witness credibility must occur during the trial, considering examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and cannot be preemptively resolved at the quashing stage. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges an order from the High Court that quashed proceedings under Section 482, after evaluating witness statements, effectively deciding on their credibility prior to trial.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court noted the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a trial instead of focusing purely on the grounds for quashing.
Issues: The court addressed whether the High Court improperly evaluated witness credibility at the pre-trial stage and the permissible scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not involve conducting credibility assessments of witness statements, emphasizing that issues of witness trustworthiness should be reserved for trial.
Result: Appeal allowed; order quashed, and case remitted for trial.
(B) Testimony reliability - The determination of witness credibility must occur during the trial, considering examination-in-chief and cross-examination, and cannot be preemptively resolved at the quashing stage. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges an order from the High Court that quashed proceedings under Section 482, after evaluating witness statements, effectively deciding on their credibility prior to trial.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court noted the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by effectively conducting a trial instead of focusing purely on the grounds for quashing.
Issues: The court addressed whether the High Court improperly evaluated witness credibility at the pre-trial stage and the permissible scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not involve conducting credibility assessments of witness statements, emphasizing that issues of witness trustworthiness should be reserved for trial.
Result: Appeal allowed; order quashed, and case remitted for trial.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by conducting a mini-trial and evaluating evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 )
3. High Court impermissibly conducted a mini-trial by evaluating Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and the correctness of chargesheet material. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 9 )
4. Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction is limited; witness trustworthiness and chargesheet correctness must be determined during trial, not at the quashing stage. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. High Court order set aside; matter remitted for trial; respondent granted liberty to file a discharge application. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for serious offences?
The scope of interference is very limited. The Court should exercise its power to quash proceedings only if it finds that, taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all. (Para 8 )
7. Can a court evaluate witness trustworthiness or the correctness of chargesheet material under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
No. Witness trustworthiness must be determined through examination-in-chief and cross-examination during trial. It is impermissible for the High Court to evaluate the correctness of prosecution material in the chargesheet while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 )
8. How does the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. differ from considering a discharge application?
The factors that a court is required to take into consideration while quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are totally different from those considered while deciding an application for discharge. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Though, we have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we have not gone into the merits of the arguments, inasmuch as any observation made by this Court with regard to the impugned order will adversely affect the rights of the parties at the stage of the trial.
3. The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) and while considering an application for discharge are totally different.
4. The least we can say is that the High Court in the impugned order, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has almost conducted a mini trial and quashed the proceedings.
5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.
9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same.
10. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits or demerits of the evidence, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the High Court.
11. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Judge for trial of the Session Case No. 1379 of 2022 on its own merits and in accordance with law.
12. In the event respondent No. 1, so desires, he would be at liberty to file an application for discharge, which will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
13. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
