Case Note & Summary
The case involves two connected petitions: Criminal Petition No.9232/2016 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of proceedings in S.C.No.15039/2015 pending before the V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, for offence under Section 304 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); and Criminal Revision Petition No.1029/2017 filed under Section 397 CrPC challenging the order dated 19.07.2017 framing charges in the same case. The petitioners, Imran and Jabeen @ Jabeen Taj, are accused in a case registered by Devanahalli Police for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The complainant, Abdul Rashid, alleged that the petitioners along with others caused the death of his brother by assault. The petitioners contended that there was no prima facie evidence against them as they were not present at the scene and no specific overt act was attributed. The State opposed the petitions. The High Court examined the material on record and found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and did not disclose any criminal act. The court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, and set aside the order framing charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court when the allegations do not make out a prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 1-10) B) Indian Penal Code - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 read with 34 IPC - Common Intention - Mere presence at the scene of occurrence without any overt act or prior meeting of minds does not attract Section 34 IPC. The court held that the petitioners were not present at the time of the incident and no specific role was attributed to them. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Interlocutory Order - The revision petition against the order framing charges is maintainable when the order is not purely interlocutory and affects the rights of the accused. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings in S.C.No.15039/2015 for offence under Section 304 read with 34 IPC should be quashed for lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioners.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both petitions, quashed the proceedings in S.C.No.15039/2015 against the petitioners, and set aside the order dated 19.07.2017 framing charges.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Lack of prima facie case
- Abuse of process of court
