Supreme Court of India
S.A. Nanjundeswara vs M.S. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. on 23 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD(CRI)158, I(2006)BC424(SC), [2004]118COMPCAS239(SC), JT2001(5)SC551, (2002)10SCC249, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 477, 2002 (10) SCC 249, 2002 AIR SCW 4, (2002) 2 ALLMR 248 (SC), (2001) 5 JT 551 (SC), 2001 (5) JT 551, 2004 SCC(CRI) 527, 2002 (2) ALL MR 248, 2001 (10) SRJ 511, (2001) 3 CRIMES 169, (2001) 21 OCR 63, (2001) 2 CURCRIR 60, (2001) 3 EASTCRIC 88, (2001) 4 SUPREME 440, (2001) 2 ALLCRIR 1593, (2001) 43 ALLCRIC 426, (2001) 3 ALLCRILR 640, (2004) 118 COMCAS 239, (2006) 1 BANKCAS 424, (2003) 25 OCR 63, (2002) 1 BOM CR 214
Author: B.N. Agrawal
Bench: B.N. Agrawal
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the High Court quashing a complaint proceeding exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after examining the complainant the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process. The accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao assailed the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process by filing application in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, by the impugned order, has quashed the said order of taking cognizance.
3. The sole contention of the appellant in this Court is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having tried to shift the materials and their coming to the conclusion that no case prima facie has been made out against accused Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
4. On the basis of this statement made in the complaint, it was not open for the High Court to quash the proceedings against the respondent. Mr. Lalit appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contended that it was open even at that stage, for the High Court, to examine the prima facie material against the applicant who had moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Magistrate so far as the applicant before the High Court is concerned.
5. Having examined the rival submissions and on examining the assertions made in the complaint and on scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashing the proceedings so far as accused Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao is concerned. The High Court can be justified in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclusion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. Obviously applying that standard it cannot be said that no offence has been made out against Smt. Veralakshmi Gundu Rao.
6. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the Magistrate to take up the proceed-
ings and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The appeal is disposed of.