TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rejects petition to quash prosecution in rape case, emphasizes independence of criminal proceedings</h1> <h3>K.G. Premshanker Versus Inspector of Police and Anr.</h3> The High Court rejected the appellant's petition to quash the prosecution stemming from an alleged incident involving rape and police misconduct. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of prosecution.2. Delay in filing the final report by CBI.3. Binding nature of civil court judgments on criminal proceedings.Summary:1. Quashing of Prosecution:The appellant and others, accused in CC No.513/95, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Cases before the High Court of Kerala to quash the prosecution against them. The High Court rejected these petitions on 11th June 1998, leading to this appeal. The prosecution stemmed from an incident reported in the evening Daily 'Sudinam' on 2nd February 1988, involving the alleged rape of a tribal girl, Manja. The appellant, a Superintendent of Police, was involved in the investigation. Madhavan, who printed the news item, was arrested and allegedly assaulted by the police. He lodged an FIR, which led to the registration of Crime No.52 of 1988 against several policemen. The High Court quashed the case against Madhavan and directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the FIR. Dissatisfied, Madhavan moved the Supreme Court, which eventually entrusted the investigation to the CBI and awarded him compensation. The CBI filed a report against 12 accused, including the appellant, for various IPC offenses.2. Delay in Filing the Final Report by CBI:The appellant and others sought to drop the proceedings, arguing that the CBI's final report was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed u/s 468 Cr.P.C. without an application for condoning the delay. The Chief Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay, which was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, who remitted the matter back to the Magistrate. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the Sessions Judge only remitted the matter for consideration of a petition u/s 473 Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay and that it was not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.3. Binding Nature of Civil Court Judgments on Criminal Proceedings:The appellant contended that since the civil suit for damages filed by Madhavan was dismissed, the criminal prosecution should also be dropped. The High Court rejected this contention. The Supreme Court referred to the judgment in V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra, which required reconsideration. The Court noted that both criminal prosecution and civil suits were pending at the trial stage. The Court discussed the precedence of civil court findings over criminal court findings, referencing Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. It concluded that the findings of a civil court do not automatically bind criminal courts, except as provided in Section 41. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its facts, and the decision in M.S. Sheriff's case, which held that criminal matters should be given precedence, was binding. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the criminal proceedings should continue independently of the civil suit outcomes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
