Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2567 (BOM)

Pankaj v. State of Maharashtra

2022-12-12

M.W.CHANDWANI, SUNIL B.SHUKRE

body2022
JUDGMENT SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This application moved under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the applicants for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet no. 114/2017 registered as Sessions Trial No. 363/2017 pending before Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur which is a Special Court for differently abled persons, senior citizens and marginalised Sec. of society, has a backdrop of certain facts which raise a question - whether it is permissible for the accused like the applicants to invoke inherent power of High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. after their application seeking discharge under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected ? The background facts would have to be considered first, in our endevour to answer the question. The facts of the case, insofar as they are necessary for the purpose of this application, are stated in ensuing paragraphs along with our observations and findings. 4. The applicants, who are accused nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7, had filed an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge from the criminal case that has been filed against them and which is registered as Sessions Trial No. 363/2017 for the offences punishable under Ss. 304B, 498A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is also an admitted fact that their discharge application filed under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5, Nagpur by her order passed on 9/9/2019. The order of rejection of the discharge application of the applicants was challenged by the applicants when they preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 4/2020. But, this application, after grant of hearing to the applicants and the other side, was rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court, as he then was, on 27/1/2021. 5. The learned Single Judge has categorically observed that when it is found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused, the order of rejecting the discharge application could not be faulted with. 5. The learned Single Judge has categorically observed that when it is found that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the accused, the order of rejecting the discharge application could not be faulted with. The learned Single Judge has further observed that sufficiency or insufficiency of the material could not be a factor to be decided at the stage of framing of charge and what is to be seen by the Court while framing of the charge is whether or not there are allegations in the prosecution case against the accused. It is further observed by the learned Single Judge that evidence at the stage of framing of the charge may not be sufficient to record conviction but, that is not the criteria while framing of the charge and even grave suspicion is enough for framing of the charge. 6. The reasons stated by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the Revision Application of the applicants are absolutely in accordance with the settled principles of law. Way back in the year 1977, in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh [ AIR 1977 SC 2018 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of law, on the basis of which jurisdiction under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Sessions Court. In paragraph no. 4 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is a stage where it is not necessary for the Court to consider as to whether or not the evidence collected by the Police during the investigation is sufficient to convict the accused. All that the Court is required to see is, as to whether or not, the material contains sufficient reasons for proceeding further in the matter and for this purpose, even grave suspicion based upon some material collected during the course of the investigation which discloses possibility of commission of offences is enough. 7. In the case of Satish Mishra Vs. All that the Court is required to see is, as to whether or not, the material contains sufficient reasons for proceeding further in the matter and for this purpose, even grave suspicion based upon some material collected during the course of the investigation which discloses possibility of commission of offences is enough. 7. In the case of Satish Mishra Vs. Delhi Administration [ (1996) 9 SCC 766 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where scope of consideration is whether there are "sufficient grounds for proceeding". That only means that it is not necessary for the Court to examine the evidentiary value of the material available on record and to consider as to whether or not the evidence so available on record is sufficient to lead to conviction of the accused. All that the Court is required to examine is as to whether or not the available evidence would provide enough reason for the Court to proceed further against the accused on the premise that if trial takes place, there is a strong possibility of commission of offence being disclosed. 8. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi [ (2005) 1 SCC 568 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the purpose of Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. is to save the accused from prolonged harassment which is necessarily a consequence of a protracted criminal trial. It is further held that the purpose is to eliminate suffering of the accused when the material gathered after the investigation falls short of minimum legal requirements. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court speaks of "minimum legal requirements", it means that the material collected during the investigation against the accused satisfies the minimum legal requirement indicated by the expression "sufficient ground for proceeding" used in Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. The meaning of "sufficient ground for proceeding", we may point out, has already been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases discussed earlier. 9. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27/1/2021, thereby rejecting the Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicants is based upon the above referred settled principles of law. 9. The order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 27/1/2021, thereby rejecting the Criminal Revision Application filed by the applicants is based upon the above referred settled principles of law. The effect of rejection of the Criminal Revision Application by the learned Single Judge of this Court is that the opinion expressed by the Trial Court that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against the applicants is correct and the view so taken by the Trial Court is confirmed by the High Court. The applicants have not challenged the order dtd. 27/1/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and thus, it has attained finality. In other words, the view taken by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further against these applicants now holds the field and the applicants as well as the Trial Court are bound by it. If this is so, the applicants now cannot approach this Court by invoking inherent power of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that if the Trial is allowed to go on, it would be nothing but abuse of process of Court. 10. In fact, in the present case, the material available on record has been found to be meeting the principle of fulfillment of minimum legal requirements as laid down in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra). As held in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], the prosecution can be quashed and set aside only to prevent abuse of process of Court or to prevent miscarriage of justice or otherwise to secure the ends of justice under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Here, in this case, as sufficient grounds exist for proceeding further against the applicants, as held by the High Court, there is no question of occurrence of any abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that parameters for deciding an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.PC. 11. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that parameters for deciding an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.PC. are quite different from parameters governing the exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. It is her opinion that even when the discharge application filed under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected by the Trial Court still, the High Court can examine the material available on record and reach a conclusion that any continuance of trial would be an abuse of process of Court. She has relied upon the case of Harish Dahiya alias Harish and another Vs. State of Punjab [ (2019) 18 SCC 69 ]. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent no. 2, however, submit that the proposition of law laid down in the case of Harish Dahiya (supra) is entirely different and probably there is misreading of the facts by learned counsel for the applicants. 12. On going through the judgment rendered in the case of Harish Dahiya (supra), we find ourselves in agreement with submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2. It was a case, wherein the High Court had refused to exercise its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the entire prosecution and thereafter, the accused filed discharge application. But, the discharge application was also rejected on the ground that High Court had refused to quash the entire prosecution. It was in this context, that the Apex Court held that grounds for quashing a criminal proceeding and the reasons for allowing or disallowing an application for discharge preferred by the accused are completely different and that the grounds falling for consideration in two jurisdictions are different. 13. Of course, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the powers of Trial Court under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. are much narrower than the inherent powers of the High Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, she is of the opinion that notwithstanding rejection of the discharge application of the applicants, this Court can still hold that continuance of further proceedings would be an abuse of process of Court. This submission of learned counsel for the applicants is fallacious. 14. In the instant case, the applicants had first filed discharge application and after its rejection, they came before this Court by invoking inherent powers of this Court. This submission of learned counsel for the applicants is fallacious. 14. In the instant case, the applicants had first filed discharge application and after its rejection, they came before this Court by invoking inherent powers of this Court. Although, it is true that there are wider considerations which go into the decision of this Court taken in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. but we must say that these wider considerations include the considerations, called narrower considerations, which weigh with the Trial Court while deciding application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. While deciding the application for discharge under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C, all that the Trial Court has to examine is as to whether or not there are sufficient grounds available for proceeding further in the matter and if it is satisfied that sufficient grounds are indeed available, the Trial Court is required to proceed to the next Sec. i.e. Sec. 228 of the Cr.P.C. by framing charge against the accused. The consideration of existence of sufficient grounds or otherwise governing Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. power is also one of the considerations for the High Court to decide on an application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the Sessions Trial. But, that is not the only consideration controlling discretion of the High Court under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. There are other considerations as well, as could be found to be stated in the case of State of Harayana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], which may govern the decision of the High Court in refusing to exercise it's power under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. But, this is not so while deciding the application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is preposterous to say that even after rejection of discharge application of the accused, the High Court can go into the issue again and say that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused. 15. In fact, one of the applicants i.e. applicant no. 1 had filed earlier a Criminal Application No. 1170/2019 under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the prosecution but, that application was dismissed by this Court on 8/11/2019 while granting liberty to the applicant to avail of appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. 15. In fact, one of the applicants i.e. applicant no. 1 had filed earlier a Criminal Application No. 1170/2019 under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the prosecution but, that application was dismissed by this Court on 8/11/2019 while granting liberty to the applicant to avail of appropriate remedy before appropriate forum. That remedy in the nature of filing of discharge application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. having been exhausted and even the revisional remedy having been availed of by the applicants, we do not think that now any application under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be filed by the applicants. But, the applicants have filed this application, which in our opinion, amounts to abuse of process of Court by the applicants. Such application deserves outright rejection together with imposition of suitable cost. 16. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits that costs may not be imposed. According to her, there was some misinterpretation of the settled principles of law by her. 17. The explanation given by learned counsel for the applicants is reasonable and we are conscious of the fact that everybody including us, being human, are open to misinterpret, misread and misunderstand just anything. If misinterpretation and misreading is a quality human and there is scope for better understanding of law next time, which we see in learned counsel for the applicants from her candid admission, we must be indulgent human. 18. The application stands dismissed. 19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.