Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shashikant Singh vs Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr on 24 April, 2002
Admittedly, the application for summoning of respondents No.2
to 5 was filed during pendency of the trial rather immediately after
examination of the prosecutrix was completed on 16.05.2013. The
prosecutrix was the first witness examined in the case. The question that,
therefore, arises for consideration is whether the respondents can escape
their liability to face criminal proceedings merely because the trial against
the accused, already before the Court, stands concluded. As per settled legal
position, order allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would
relate back to the date of application. A serious prejudice is likely to be
caused to the interest of justice as well as to the rights of the complainant in
case the plea of the respondents is accepted that as the trial against Sehju
and others already stands concluded, they can not be subject to criminal
proceedings even if the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is meritorious.
This apart, such a finding can well be exploited by unscrupulous
prosecutors or vested interests by keeping the application pending till the
trial is concluded. Even otherwise, the question is no longer res intergra.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria
and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 542
after referring to the judgment in Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh
and Anr., (2002)5 SCC 738, Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
(2007)7 SCC 378 has held in para 15, as follows:-