High Court of Allahabad has suggested to opt for CrPC 239 at Trial Court, instead of CrPC 482 at High Court.
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,
In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.
Case Details:
Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/
Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017
Another beautiful judgment from High Court of Karnataka in this revision petition on Discharge dismissal.
From Para 10,
I have perused the said statements dated 10.07.2011, namely Sangondeppa Siddappa Hulagabal, the statement Sangondeppa Ningondeppa Lesappagol, Shrishail Basappa Gundagi, Kallappa Beerappa Dafedar, Mallappa Mahadev Baligar, Tammanna Beerappa Jakkannavar and Ningappa Siddappa Layannavar. Looking to all these statement of said witnesses, they are all dated 10.07.2011. Looking to the statement of these witnesses wherein they have stated that it is alleged before them by the complainant and her father that accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. So in the statement of all these witnesses absolutely there is no reference so far as the present petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 stating that they also giving such ill- treatment. The statement of these witnesses completely silent about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, looking to the statement of these witnesses it clearly goes to show that absolutely there is no allegation and even there is no statement of such witnesses that they were informed by either complainant or her father about the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners herein. When i.e. so it assumes importance whether really the prosecution placed prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Looking to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which are referred above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 principles laid down in the said decisions also goes to show that the proceedings against the accused person should not be as an abuse of process of the Court or by making false allegations. But here, it is do doubt true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in the beginning of the complaint there are some allegation even against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, but the same is not corroborated by the statement of independent witnesses about whose statements I have made the reference. Therefore, reading the entire charge sheet material and the principles in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes to show that there is no prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial court while considering the application seeking discharge from the proceedings ought to have considered these aspects, which is not done by the trial court. The trial court wrongly comes to the conclusion that even there is prima facie case as against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below suffers from legal infirmity. Therefore, it will not sustain in law.
MS Indian Oil Corporation Vs MS NEPC India Ltd. and Ors on 20 July, 2006
This judgment professes the lower courts to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.
From Para 10,
While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.
Court On Its Own Motion Vs Deepak Khosla on 22 February, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi gave this judgment.
On 11.10.2013, while arguing certain applications in LPA 16/2012, the respondent, Advocate Deepak Khosla referred to the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Easwar, as „Dedh Bench‟ (Hindustani equivalent of one-and-half Bench). Recording this expression, the order dated 11.10.2013, noted that it would take a view on this expression at the time of final disposal of CM No. 2392/2013.
A old article of 2013 about this person here.
And few more below
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/Contempt-notice-to-advocate-for-%E2%80%98attempting-to-intimidate%E2%80%99-court/article17389175.ece
https://barandbench.com/double-whammy-deepak-khosla-moves-supreme-court-against-delhi-hc-contempt-gets-slapped-with-contempt-by-supreme-court/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Angry-HC-sends-lawyer-to-jail-for-misconduct/articleshow/51146445.cms
https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-20000-costs-deepak-khosla-kirti-uppal/
https://www.livelaw.in/delhi-hc-turns-plea-video-recording-proceedings-advises-advocate-temperate-civilised-read-order/
K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. and Ors. on July 09, 2008
Another authority from a division bench of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that,
From Para 24 and 26,
24. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.
26. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the Court, the Court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done”. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it.
From Paras 28 and 29,
28. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play `hide and seek’ or to `pick and choose’ the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, “the Court knows law but not facts”.
29. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commissioners is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and `clean breast’ cannot hold a writ of the Court with `soiled hands’. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.
From final para,
the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the Writ Court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief.
Citations : [2008 SUPREME 5 287], [2008 AIOL 783], [2008 SCC 12 481], [2008 JT SC 8 57]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007946/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae87e4b01497114140b2
Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001
Hon’ble High Court of AP has held that, the High Court, by exercising its inherent powers can quash the F.I.R. or Investigation in appropriate cases following the tests laid down in Bhajanlal’s case by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
State Of U.P Vs O.P. Sharma on 6 February, 1996
Another judgment from hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that if there are evidences in support of FIR, using 482 CrPC to quash FIR is not to be invoked.
Order
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and the appropriate Court would dispose of the case within six months therefrom.
State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs Shri Pirthi Chand And Anr on 30 November, 1995
Good judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that, though the search may be illegal but the
evidence collected, i.e., Panchnama etc., nonetheless would be admissible at the trial. At the stage of
filing charge-sheet it cannot be said that there is no evidence and the Magistrate or the Sessions
Judge would be committing illegality to discharge the accused on the ground that Section 50 or
other provisions have not been complied with. At the trial an opportunity would be available to the
prosecution to prove that the search was conducted in accordance with law. Even if search is found
to be in violation of law, what weight should be given to the evidence collected is yet another
question to be gone into. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in
discharging the accused, after filing of the charge-sheet holding that mandatory requirements of
Section 50 had not been complied with.
Rajesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 17 May, 2018
Excellent judgment which is well supported and reasoned from hon’ble High Court of Madras regarding issuance and recall of NBW non-bailable warrants.
It is further seen that the cases in which trial courts issue Non Bailable Warrants may be broadly classified in four categories namely, (i) the trial court issues Non Bailable Warrants without issuing summons first, (ii) the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant when the accused is absent for one or two hearings without inquiring into the cause of absence, (iii) where the accused is absent for one or two hearings and files a petition under Section 317 of the Code, the Court rejects the petition and issues a Non Bailable Warrant and (iv) where the accused has intentionally absented himself from the trial and does not attend any hearings and then, the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant.
From Para 18, 19 and 20,
It is also brought to my notice that apart from various other reasons for the long pendency of cases before the trial Courts, the non execution of Non Bailable Warrant is one among the reasons. This fact is reiterated through the last data collected by the NCRB.
In most of these pending cases, it is seen that whenever a Non Bailable warrant is kept pending execution, the usual practice among many of the Court is to adjourn the case on the ground that “Non Bailable Warrant is pending”. In heinous crimes, where there is deliberate and continuous non appearance of the accused, the trial Court may proclaim him as person absconding under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., there can be no impediment on the part of the trial Court to pronounce him as a proclaimed offender, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely for the purpose of having the warrant executed. Hence, the existence of the fourth category of cases cannot be a ground to preclude the High Court to do justice in the first three categories particularly, when they constitute a major portion of the pending cases in the State of Tamil Nadu, in which, Non Bailable Warrants are pending execution.
Referenced Supreme Court precedent is available here.
