The Division Judge bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari of the Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gaba and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others held that when the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, based on which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 - Complainant invoking Sections 405, 420, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). However, the summons were directed to be issued only under Section 406 of the IPC, and not under Sections 420, 471, or 120B of the IPC. Furthermore, the summoning order which was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld by the High Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the assertions made in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by respondent no. 2 - complainant failed to establish the conditions and incidence of the penal liability set out under Sections 405, 420, and 471 of the IPC, as the allegations pertain to an alleged breach of contractual obligations. Pertinently, this Court, in several cases, has noticed attempts made by parties to invoke jurisdiction of criminal courts, by filing vexatious criminal complaints by camouflaging allegations that were ex facie outrageous or pure civil claims. These attempts are not entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold.The apex court relied upon the judgment titled Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M. Johny in which it was pointed out that the court should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegations may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. The court must cautiously examine the facts to ascertain whether they only constitute a civil wrong, as the ingredients of criminal wrong are missing. A conscious application of the said aspects is required by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. The requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record. He/she may even put questions to the complainant and his/her witnesses when examined under Section 200 of the Code to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, a summons should be issued. A summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts or on the application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without an appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in society. It results in the anxiety of uncertain times.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court held that the High Court while dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge. Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged. The inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances. When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, based on which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued.
Case Title: Deepak Gaba and Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw SC 1
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2328 OF 2022
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Syed Jafar Alam
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Mayuri Raghuvanshi
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments