Shaheda Begum vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 23 March, 2001Equivalent citations: II (2001) DMC 453 Bench: G Pattanaik, U Banerjee
1. Soon after filing of charge-sheet under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused persons moved the High Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482. By the impugned order, the High Court having quashed the criminal proceedings, the complainant is before us. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant that the impugned order indicates that High Court has shifted, even at this stage, the materials on record, and by entering into an arena of conjectures has quashed criminal proceedings, and as such has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused respondents, on the other hand, contended that in such frivolous cases, if the High Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, even at this preliminary stage, then it would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore no error can be found with the impugned order of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings. Having examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and the findings arrived therein, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in interfering with a criminal proceedings where the charge-sheet alone has been filed at that stage. The High Court was not justified to shift the materials and come to any conclusion by surmise of conjectures in that view of the matter, the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be sustained. Needless to mention when the charges would be framed, it will be open for the accused to raise all objections which can be duly considered by the authority framing the Charge.
2. The appeal is accordingly allowed.