Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Pragati Santosh Sangle, the original complainant, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed, alleging that the accused persons (seven in number) had committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording verification of the complainant and examining a witness, Rajendra Sahebrao Ghule, the Magistrate issued process against accused Nos.1 to 5 by order dated 12-09-2014. Accused Nos.4 and 5 challenged this order in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2014 before the Sessions Judge at Beed. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order of issuance of process against accused Nos.4 and 5. The applicant then invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to challenge the Sessions Court's order. The High Court considered whether the Sessions Judge was justified in interfering with the Magistrate's order at the stage of issuance of process. The High Court noted that the Magistrate had recorded verification and examined a witness, and there was sufficient material to proceed against all accused. The Sessions Judge had re-appreciated the evidence and substituted his own view, which was not permissible in revision. The High Court held that the revisional court can interfere only if the order is perverse or illegal, and the Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application, quashed the Sessions Court order, and restored the order of issuance of process against accused Nos.4 and 5.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Issuance of Process - Section 204 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The Magistrate, after recording verification and examining a witness, issued process against accused Nos.1 to 5. The Sessions Judge in revision set aside the process against accused Nos.4 and 5. The High Court held that the Magistrate's satisfaction for issuing process is based on a prima facie case and cannot be lightly interfered with in revision unless the order is perverse or illegal. The High Court quashed the Sessions Court order and restored the process against accused Nos.4 and 5. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Interference with Revision Order - The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the Sessions Court's order in revision, as the Sessions Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence at the stage of issuance of process. The High Court held that the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and substitute its own view. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order of issuance of process against accused Nos.4 and 5 in a complaint under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to restore the process.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application, quashed the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Petition No.128 of 2014 dated 24-11-2015, and restored the order of issuance of process against original accused Nos.4 and 5 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur Kasar, in Regular Criminal Case No.305 of 2014 dated 12-09-2014.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 204 CrPC
- Section 397 CrPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- Section 307 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 504 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- prima facie case
- interference in revision
- inherent powers
