Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

93. In view of the above, it is not permissible to read the said observations in a manner not warranted nor any person can be permitted to make an issue of it. The Full Court only intended to say that the ratio of Joginder Kumar's case was not applicable in a case where quashing of criminal proceedings is sought.

ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED:

94. In view of the above, the conclusions drawn by us, hereinabove, we answer the first part of question No. 1 holding that Satyapal's case lays down the correct law and we approve, affirm and reiterate the same. However, the second part of the 1st question does not require to be answered, as the ratio of Joginder Kumar's case has no application in a case for quashing criminal proceedings.

95. Our answer to the second question under reference is that the observations contained in the Full Bench decision in Satyapal's case did not Intend to whittle down or reduce the powers of this Court for staying the arrest of an accused person and for which our judgment contains reason explaining the intendment of the Full Bench judgment therein, i.e. the ratio of Joginder Kumar's case had no application in Satyapal's case.

96. After answering the aforesaid questions, the matter requires to be sent back to the Division Bench for its disposal. However, at the time of conclusion of the submissions, it was suggested by the learned Counsel for the parties that in the instant case the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The Competent Court has already taken cognizance and In such circumstances, the petition has become infructuous and be accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

The answer given by Brother Chauhan J was as follows:

In view of the above, the conclusions drawn by us, hereinabove, we answer the first part of question No. 1 holding that Satyapal's case lays down the correct law and we approve, affirm and reiterate the same. However, the second part of the 1st question does not require to be answered, as the ratio of Joginder Kumar's case has no application in a case for quashing criminal proceedings.

However, I need to say a few words especially in relation to the answer given by Brother Chauhan J to the second question posed by the referring division bench.

The second question referred by the Division Bench was as under:

2. Whether the Full Bench in Satyapal's case was right in holding that Joginder Kumar's case was delivered on its own peculiar facts and circumstances and hence does not lay down any legal principles relating to the power of arrest and the power of stay to arrest by this Court?

The answer given by Brother Chauhan, J. to the second question was:

Our answer to the second question under reference is that the observations contained in the Full Bench decision in Satyapal's case did not intend to whittle down or reduce the powers of this Court for staying the arrest of an accused person and for which our judgment contains reason explaining the intendment of the Full Bench judgment therein, i.e. the ratio of Joginder Kumar's case had no application in Satyapal's case.