Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Darshan Singh Saini – Appellant
Versus
Sohan Singh and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1833 & 1834 of 2011
Decided On : 23-07-2015
(2014) 2 SCC 62 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 216 – JMFC taking cognizance only u/s 341 and 506 r/w section 34, not u/s 323 IPC – High Court quashing proceeding u/s 341 and 506 but permitting prosecution u/s 323 – No infirmity in view of section 216. (Para 12)
(c) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities and Prevention) Act, 1989 – Unless the complainant belongs to SC/ST and the accused belong to upper caste, prosecution under the Act cannot be maintained. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was lodged against the appellants by the respondents before the JMFC who took cognizance and issued summons u/s 341 and 506, read with Section 34 IPC.
The High Court while partly accepting the prayer of the appellant, quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but arrived at the conclusion, that there was reasonable ground to proceed against the appellant under Section 323 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The relevant dates for calculating the limitation period under section 468 of the CrPC are the date of the incident and the date of filing the complaint. The date on which the court takes cognizance is not material for limitation purposes (!) (!) (!) .
Any court has the authority under section 216 of the CrPC to alter or add to charges at any time before the judgment is pronounced (!) (!) .
Prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can only be maintained if the complainant belongs to an SC/ST and the accused belongs to an upper caste (!) (!) .
The incident in question occurred on 15.01.2008, and the complaint was filed on 24.01.2008. Since the complaint was filed within the limitation period, the limitation clause does not bar prosecution (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the date of taking cognizance by the magistrate is not the relevant date for limitation calculations; rather, it is the date of filing the complaint or the institution of prosecution (!) (!) .
The appellant's contention that proceedings under certain sections should not have been initiated due to the lapse of limitation was rejected because the limitation period was calculated based on the date of the incident and the complaint, not the date of cognizance (!) (!) .
The court upheld the authority of the court to modify or add charges before judgment, which justified continuing proceedings despite the appellant's objections (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the lower court was upheld. The court also rejected the request to frame charges under specific acts due to the absence of evidence indicating the complainant's or the accused's caste status at the relevant time (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification.
Judgment
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1833/2011
The respondent Sohan Singh was an employee of the appellant-Darshan Singh Saini. According to Sohan Singh, he was engaged by the appellant in hotel Geetanjali Guest House, which the appellant owned at Baddi, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Based on the services rendered by the respondent, certain emoluments which were due to the respondent, were allegedly not paid to Sohan Singh by the appellant. It was also asserted at the behest of the respondent, that on occasions, when he demanded the arrears of salary payable to him, he was threatened by Darshan Singh Saini, that in case the appellant ever set eyes on the respondent-Sohan Singh, he will be killed.
2. The respondent is stated to have made a complaint in respect of the threatening conduct of the appellant-Darshan Singh Saini (and his father-Beli Ram). On coming to know about the complaint made by the respondent, it is the assertion of Sohan Singh, that the appellant – Darshan Singh Saini, abused him in the name of his mother and sister on 15.1.2008, as also on account of the fact, that he belonged to the scheduled caste. Besides being abused, it was also sought to be asserted by Sohan Singh, that the appellant-Darshan Singh Saini slapped the respondent, and gave him fist-blows, after holding his neck, and pushing him to the ground. It was also the contention of the respondent-Sohan Singh, that in the aforesaid incident, the father of the appellant-Beli Ram supported Darshan Singh Saini. According to the respondent-complainant, the respondent could be saved in the above abusing and assaulting incident, only on account of the intervention of Bhagat Ram and Chet Ram.
3. It was also sought to be asserted, that the animosity between the parties is based on the fact, that the appellant and his father believed, that the respondent-Sohan Singh, did not support them during the State Assembly elections, in 2007.
4. It is also apparent from the pleadings of this case, that according to the respondent, the police did not interfere, when the respondent repeatedly visited the police station, to lodge his complaint. It is therefore, that the respondent-Sohan Singh lodged a written complaint on 24-01-2008, before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
5. The appellant-Darshan Singh Saini, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when he was summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh through an order dated 06-02-2009.
6. A perusal of order dated 06-02-2009 reveals, that the appellant was summoned under Sections 341 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The High Court, by the impugned order dated 08-04-2010, while partly accepting the prayer of the appellant, quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but arrived at the conclusion, that there was reasonable ground to proceed against the appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not acceptable in law, on account of the fact, that cognizance in the matter could not have been taken against the appellant, on account of the period of limitation depicted under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this behalf, it was the pointed contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that whilst the instant incident was of 15-01-2008, cognizance thereof was taken on 06.02.2009. This contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant was premised on the fact, that though the complaint had been made on 24-01-2008, cognizance thereof was taken beyond a period of limitation of one year (on 06-02-2009).
9. We have considered the aforesaid contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is apparent f
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
