Disposed¶61

Baikunth Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Supreme Court15 Dec 20082008 INSC 1433 · [2008] 17 S.C.R. 5612008 INSC 1433

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Baikunth Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.; Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008; s.482 CrPC petition disposed of without notice to complainant; quashing of s.406 IPC cognizance and summons set aside; complainant required to be heard; conclusion based on presumptions and surmises; cross-case under 304-B/201/34 IPC r/w Dowry Act ss.3-4; Patna High Court Criminal Misc. No. 9428 of 2006 dated 21.07.2006; Complaint Case No. 272 of 2002; matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal before appropriate Bench.

What did the court decide?

Impugned High Court order set aside; parties directed to appear before the High Court on 21st January, 2009 without any further notice; Chief Justice of the High Court requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench. ¶61

Baikunth Singh versus State of Bihar and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2008)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court could rightly dispose of the s.482 CrPC petition and quash the trial court's cognizance order without issuing notice to the complainant (appellant), who had been impleaded as a party. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

This was not a case where the complainant was not required to be heard, since the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant (Complaint Case No. 272 of 2002); the petition ought not to have been disposed of without issuing notice to him.

¶60

Ratio / Principle

The High Court's conclusion that the complaint was filed to pressurize respondents 2 and 3 rested on presumptions and surmises; there was no material in that regard and the stage for deciding that question had not arisen.

¶59

Key takeaways

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the impugned order was set aside and the parties directed to appear before the High Court on 21st January, 2009 without any further notice, the Chief Justice being requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India (Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.), Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008, decided 15-12-2008: The Patna High Court, exercising power under s.482 CrPC, had quashed the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance under s.406 IPC and issuing summons on the appellant's complaint (Complaint Case No. 272 of 2002), opining that the complaint might have been filed to pressurize the accused from pursuing their cross-case under s.304-B/201/34 IPC r/w ss.3 and 4 of the Dowry Act — and did so without issuing notice to the complainant although he was impleaded as a party. Held, disposing of the appeal: the High Court's conclusion rested on presumptions and surmises with no material, and the stage for deciding that question had not arisen; the complainant was required to be heard. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the impugned order was set aside and the parties directed to appear before the High Court on 21-01-2009 without further notice, the Chief Justice being requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench.

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 561

...

}I, -;

BAIKUNTH SINGH

STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008)

¶9

DECEMBER 15, 2008

¶10

¶11

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA~ JJ.]

....

~ ....

-' ,... ) >....-

.....(,

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Petition under - Manner of disposal - Challenge to - Pursuant to a c complaint, trial court took cognizance under s.406 /PC and issued summons against the accused - They filed petition under s.482 CrPC - Complainant impleaded as a party - High Court quashed the order of trial court without issuing notice to the complainant - Justification of - Held: Not justified - D Complainant was required to be heard - Parties directed to appear before High Court on stipulated date without any further notice - Penal Code, 1860 - s.406.

¶20

Pursuant to a complaint filed by the appellant, the trial court took cognizance under s.406, IPC and issued summons against respondents 2 and 3.

¶21

¶22

Respondents 2 and 3 filed petition under s.482 CrPC, impleading appellant as a party therein. The High Court came to a conclusion that the appellant might have filed the complaint case in order to pressurize the respondents 2 and 3 not to proceed with their cross-case against appellant under ss.3048, 201/34 IPC r/w ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Act and quashed the order passed by the trial court.

¶23

¶24

The order passed by the High Court was primarily challenged in the present appeal on the ground that it was passed without issuing notice to the appellant. It was contended that the exercise of power u/s.482 CrPC was not warranted on the facts of the case.

561

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 17 S.C.R.

562

1- f

A Disposing of the appeal, the Court

¶34

HELD: The High Court came to a conclusion which r " appears to have been more on presumptions and surmises that the case might have been filed to pressurize the respondents 2 and 3. There was no B material in this regard and in any event the stage for deciding that question had not arisen. It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required to be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were .A initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the c appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272

¶35

of 2002. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the parties are directed to appear before the High Court on stipulated date without any further notice. [Paras 6, 7 and 8] [5~3-D-G]

¶36

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008.

¶37

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 of the,.. High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 9428 of 2006.

¶38

E Nagendra Rai, Anshul Raj, Shantanu Sagar, Abhishek Anand and T. Mahipal for the Appellant.

¶39

Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Braj Kishore Mishra, Abhishek Jha, Vikram, Tansuhree Sinha, Ujjwal K. Jha and Aparna Jha for the Respondents.

¶40

¶41

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶42

-;-.

¶43

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶44

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the G order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos.t\ --.. 2 and 3. The High Court exercised power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cod~). H The High Court was of the view that the case might have been

¶45

BAIKUNTH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶46

563

¶47

filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the petitioners before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Act against the complainant and others.

¶48

Various points were urged in support of the appeal. Primarily it was submitted that the petition was disposed of without issuing notice to the complainant. It is submitted that the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code was not warranted on the facts of the case.

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported the order of the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the stand of the appellant.

-J

It is not in dispute that the present appellant was impleaded as a party in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9428 of 2006 which was filed by respondents 2 and 3. Strangely, without issuing any notice the petition was disposed of.

¶59

The High Court has come to a conclusion which appears to have been more on presumptions and surmises that the case might have been filed to pressurize the applicants before the High Court. There was no material in this regard and in any event the stage for deciding that question had not arisen.

¶60

It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant was not required to be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272 of 2002.

¶61

In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order. We direct the parties to appear before the High Court without any further notice on 21st January, 2009. The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to allot the matter to an appropriate Bench.

¶62