Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the accused against the High Court's order which deleted the names of the Director General of Police and the Chief Minister from the revision petition. The trial court had taken cognizance of a complaint filed by the State Government under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, based on a sanction under Section 199(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellants contended that the two respondents were necessary parties since the complaint was based on allegations involving them. The High Court, however, ruled that they were not necessary parties as they were not involved in the trial court proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the revisional jurisdiction was limited to examining whether the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence. The court noted that the High Court was not required to consider extraneous matters or the necessity of other parties in the revision process. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of High Court's powers - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 397, 401 - The High Court's role in a revision petition is limited to determining if the complaint and accompanying papers prima facie indicate an offence. The High Court correctly deleted the names of respondents who were not parties in the trial court proceedings, as they were not necessary for the revision. Held that the High Court's decision was justified (Paras 1135-1138).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in deleting the names of respondents who were not parties before the trial court in a revision petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order to delete the names of the two respondents, stating that they were not necessary parties in the revision proceedings.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction
- High Court powers
- necessary parties
- prima facie case
- complaint examination
Case Details
1987 LawText (SC) (08) 22
Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1987
OZA, G.L., MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI
1987 SCR (3) 1128, 1987 SCC (4) 557, JT 1987 (3) 435, 1987 SCALE (2) 451
L.R. Singh, M. Veerappa, A.K. Panda
State of Karnataka & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against the High Court's order in a revision petition.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to quash the order directing issue of process and the proceedings against them.
Filing Reason
The complaint was filed by the State Government under Section 500 IPC based on a sanction.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had deleted the names of two respondents, ruling they were not necessary parties.
Issues
Whether the High Court was correct in deleting the names of respondents who were not parties before the trial court.
What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the two respondents were necessary parties due to their involvement in the allegations.
The respondents contended that the High Court was correct in deleting the names as they were not parties in the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the complaint prima facie discloses an offence, and it is not required to consider the necessity of parties not involved in the trial court.
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court was right in deleting the names of the two respondents.
What it is expected to see only is as to whether the complaint and the papers accompanying it prima facie indicate that an offence is made out.
The question about anyone else being instrumental in getting the prosecution launched or questions which are foreign are not to be considered in a revision.
Procedural History
The trial court took cognizance of a complaint by the State Government and issued process against the appellants. The appellants filed a revision petition in the High Court, which deleted the names of two respondents, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code: 500, 199(2)
