2016 (4) TMI 1474 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellants have locus standi to maintain appeal in murder case Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction exceeded

SC held that appellants had locus standi to maintain appeal as they had precise connection with the matter. HC exceeded jurisdiction under Section 482 ... Maintainability of appeal - locus standi of the appellants to file an appeal - appellants contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the FIR and the charge sheet establish a prima-facie case against the respondent nos. 2-9 - it is also submitted that criminal proceedings ought not to have been quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Whether this appeal is maintainable by the appellants on the ground of the locus standi? - HELD THAT:- The appellants have locus standi to maintain this appeal. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal - Further, it is pertinent here to observe that it may not be possible to strictly enumerate as to who all will have locus to maintain an appeal before this Court invoking Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it depends upon the factual matrix of each case, as each case has its unique set of facts. It is clear from the aforementioned case law that the Court should be liberal in allowing any third party, having bonafide connection with the matter, to maintain the appeal with a view to advance substantial justice. However, this power of allowing a third party to maintain an appeal should be exercised with due care and caution. Persons, unconnected with the matter under consideration or having personal grievance against the accused should be checked. A strict vigilance is required to be maintained in this regard. Whether the High Court, in the instant case, has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC? - HELD THAT:- A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused-persons after a perusal of case diary, chargesheet and other material placed before the court. The cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out against the accused-persons. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of the case made out by the police, in the chargesheet filed by them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution in that particular case. At this stage, the court’s duty is limited to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed before it, offence alleged therein against the accused is made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It has erred in quashing the cognizance order passed by the learned CJM without appreciating the material placed before it in correct perspective. The High Court has ignored certain important facts, namely, that on 17.10.2008, the appellant no.1 was allegedly threatened by the accused-Mukhtar for which FIR No. 104/08 was registered against him for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 - The evidence collected by the I.O. by recording the statement of prosecution witnesses, filed alongwith the chargesheet was duly considered by the learned CJM before taking cognizance and therefore, the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Further, the High Court has failed to take into consideration another important aspect that the case at hand relates to the grave offence of murder and that the criminal proceedings related thereto should not lightly be interfered with, which is a well settled proposition of law. Order - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the High Court in the instant case has failed to appreciate the material placed before it and has exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside by this Court. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned CJM for proceeding further in accordance with law - The appeal is allowed. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the appeal based on the locus standi of the appellants.2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.3. Appropriate order to be passed.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Appeal Based on Locus Standi:The Court examined the concept of 'locus standi', emphasizing that traditionally, only aggrieved parties could seek justice in court. However, this has been relaxed to allow individuals with a bona fide connection to the case to approach the court. In criminal matters, the State typically prosecutes, but if the State fails, an interested party with a genuine connection can appeal. The Court referenced several cases, including P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Ramakant Rai, to establish that private parties can invoke the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 if justice demands it. The appellants in this case demonstrated a legitimate connection, as one appellant was threatened by the informant, and the other was allegedly falsely implicated. Thus, the Court concluded that the appellants have locus standi to maintain this appeal.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 of the CrPC:The Court scrutinized whether the High Court acted within its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC when it quashed the cognizance order. It is established that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court should not delve into the merits of the case but should assess whether the material presented prima facie constitutes an offense. The Court reiterated the principles from Bhajan Lal's case, which outline scenarios where quashing is justified, such as when allegations do not constitute an offense or are inherently improbable. The Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing the proceedings without adequately considering the material evidence, including witness statements under Section 164 of the CrPC that implicated the informant in the murder. The High Court also overlooked the seriousness of the murder charge, which should not be dismissed lightly.3. Appropriate Order to be Passed:Given the High Court's failure to properly evaluate the material evidence and its overreach in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the Supreme Court decided to set aside the High Court's judgment. The matter was remitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, underscoring the necessity for careful judicial consideration in cases involving serious charges like murder.