Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"So far as OP-II is concerned, we find no material on record to fasten any liability for the conduct of the O.P.-I and O.P.-III with whom O.P.-II have allegedly only principal relationship.'' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 17 SCC 157, Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12 SCC 420, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI (2015) 4 SCC 609 and Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Bangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1047-1048/2021 made a distinction on application of mind by the judge for the purpose of taking cognizance based on a police report on the one hand and a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the other, and that the requirement of a demonstrable application of mind in the latter case was higher as was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanafatta. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate having noticed that proceeding had been initiated on the basis of a complaint, held that "Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused." The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.11.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1868 of 2011 in a matter titled as M/s Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs K.M.Johny & Ors. while dealing with the issue of vicarious liability in a criminal proceeding held that vicarious liability was unknown to criminal law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle regarding invoking of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajanlal Citation AIR 1992 SC 604 and the instant case fell under the 1st and 3rd category of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as Lovely Salhotra & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Citation (2018) 12 SCC 391 allowed even partial quashing of FIR. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the matter titled as Anguri Devi etc. Vs State of Punjab etc Citation 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 431 allowed partial quashing of FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another case titled as Surendra Kumar Bhatia Vs Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. Citation (2009) 12 SCC 184 upheld partial quashing of FIR.

4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the revision petition, the affidavits and the written notes of submissions.

5. In the course of the proceedings, a few attempts were made by the parties to settle their disputes. Sufficient time was granted. But, no settlement could be arrived at.

6. First, it is trite law that like a partial acquittal or a partial discharge, a partial quashing of proceeding may also take place in an appropriate case. In fact, this proposition has also not been seriously disputed by the complainant.