Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Alka Bapu Gund vs Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankaria . on 3 January, 2017
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, L. Nageswara Rao
1
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.4 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 8221/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 24/12/2014
IN CRLWP NO. 390/2005 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT
AURANGABAD)
ALKA BAPU GUND PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
PRAKASH KANHAIYALAL KANKARIA AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND INTERIM RELIEF
AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 03/01/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Adv.
Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Exemption from filing O.T. is granted. Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
Signature Not Verified
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Digitally signed by VINOD LAKHINA Date: 2017.01.04 15:08:35 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10 OF 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8221/2015] ALKA BAPU GUND ...APPELLANT VERSUS PRAKASH KANHAIYALAL KANKARIA AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite due service of notice.
3. The challenge in this appeal is against the order of the High Court dated 24th December, 2014 by which the process issued against the accused respondents on 2 the private complaint filed by the wife of the deceased Bapu Nivrutti Gund has been interfered with by the High Court.
4. We have taken note of the facts including the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency to the effect that there was insufficient evidence/material to implicate the accused respondents. The complaint in question was filed by the wife of the deceased after submission of the aforesaid final report by the Investigating Agency. Seven witnesses were examined in the complaint proceedings and only thereafter cognizance was taken and process was issued against the accused respondents.
5. The High Court in the impugned judgment seems to have embarked on a virtual trial of the case though it was entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Article 227 of the Constitution 3 of India for quashing of the order taking congnizance and the complaint as a whole. The probity of the evidence tendered by the complainant's witnesses prior to issuance of process was even gone into by the High Court.
6. Having regard to the settled principles of law, we do not consider the approach of the High Court to be correct in law. At the stage at which the case was poised for consideration, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to have embarked upon the exercise that was undertaken. As the same appears to be in clear excess of jurisdiction, we set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the complaint proceedings against the accused respondents be continued from the stage where the same was interdicted. 4
7. Consequently and for the reasons aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO) NEW DELHI JANUARY 03, 2017