Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Aroon Purie vs Jayakumar Hiremath on 5 September, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.40 COURT NO.6 SECTION IIB
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). 6739/2015
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27/07/2015
IN CRLP NO. 2572/2015 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE)
AROON PURIE PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH APPLN. (S) FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER AND INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
WITH
SLP(CRL) NO. 7403/2015
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 05/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s)
SLP(CRL) 6739/15 Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sajad Sultan, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Guru, Adv.
Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv.
SLP(CRL) 7403/15 Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Pratik Malik, Adv.
Ms. Liz Mathew, Adv.
Mr. Philiph, Adv.
Ms. Rashmita, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Anantha Narayana M.G., Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2016.09.06
17:44:05 IST
Reason:
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.843 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6739/2015] AROON PURIE ...APPELLANT VERSUS JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH ...RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.847 OF 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.7403/2015] [MAHENDRA SINGH DHONI VS. JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH] ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the petitions for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed by the 2 appellants on the ground that this Court in Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] has laid down the law that an order summoning the accused is revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. We disagree with the view of the High Court. On a plain reading of the judgment of this Court in Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh (supra) no such proposition of law has been laid down. In fact, in paragraph 21.3 this Court has held to the contrary i.e. the power under Section 482 would always be available to challenge an order issuing process or summons.
3. The above apart, from the materials on record it appears that the accused appellants in the present appeals have and maintain residence beyond the local 3 jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. Under the provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. it was, therefore, mandatory for the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry either by himself or direct an investigation by the Police prior to the issuance of process. Admittedly, the same had not been done. If the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. had not been followed, the learned trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to issue process/summons as has been done.
4. We have also taken note of the complaint petition and the averments made therein and the necessary ingredients to attract the offence(s) alleged which is under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4
5. On such consideration, we interfere with the orders of the High Court; allow the appeals and set aside and quash the proceedings qua the appellants as a whole including the summoning order dated 17th January, 2015.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 05, 2016