Case Note & Summary
The respondent (complainant) filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner (accused No.1) married another woman (accused No.2) during the subsistence of her marriage with him. The case was registered as C.C. No. 14696/1991. After the accused led evidence, the complainant filed an application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. seeking to be examined afresh or to lead further evidence. The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, rejected the application by order dated 17.9.2016. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court framed the issue: whether a complainant is entitled to be examined afresh or permitted to lead further evidence after the accused has tendered evidence in a private complaint proceeding. The court analyzed Section 246 Cr.P.C., which deals with the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. It noted that Section 246(5) provides that after the accused's evidence, the complainant may be allowed to cross-examine the accused's witnesses, but there is no express bar on the complainant leading further evidence. The court held that the Magistrate has the discretion to permit the complainant to lead further evidence if it is necessary for a just decision. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was allowed, directing the Magistrate to permit the complainant to lead further evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Private Complaint - Complainant's Right to Lead Further Evidence - Section 246 Cr.P.C. - The question was whether a complainant can be examined afresh or lead further evidence after the accused has tendered evidence in a private complaint proceeding - The court held that Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not bar the complainant from leading further evidence after the accused's evidence, and the Magistrate has discretion to permit such evidence in the interest of justice - The impugned order rejecting the application was set aside (Paras 1, 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complainant is entitled to be examined afresh or permitted to lead further evidence after evidence came to be tendered by the accused in a proceedings initiated on a private complaint?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the order dated 17.9.2016 passed in C.C. No.14696/1991, and allowed the application filed under Section 246 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate was directed to permit the complainant to lead further evidence.
Law Points
- Section 246 Cr.P.C.
- private complaint
- complainant's right to lead further evidence
- re-examination after accused evidence
- criminal procedure
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (07) 3
Criminal Petition No.2635/2017
Sri. Raghavendra K (for petitioner), Smt. Maliakkal Perianchery Ansa (party-in-person for respondent)
Mrs. Maliakkal Perianchery Ansa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order rejecting application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. to lead further evidence in a private complaint case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (accused) sought to set aside the order dated 17.9.2016 rejecting the complainant's application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and to grant the said application.
Filing Reason
The complainant's application to be examined afresh or to lead further evidence after the accused's evidence was rejected by the Magistrate.
Previous Decisions
The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, rejected the application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. by order dated 17.9.2016 in C.C. No.14696/1991.
Issues
Whether a complainant is entitled to be examined afresh or permitted to lead further evidence after evidence came to be tendered by the accused in a proceedings initiated on a private complaint?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner (accused) argued that the complainant's application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. was rightly rejected as the provision does not permit re-examination after the accused's evidence.
The respondent (complainant) argued that Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not bar leading further evidence and the Magistrate has discretion to allow it.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not bar the complainant from leading further evidence after the accused's evidence in a private complaint proceeding; the Magistrate has discretion to permit such evidence in the interest of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
A short, but an important question of law which arises for consideration in this petition is: 'Whether a complainant is entitled to be examined afresh or permitted to lead further evidence after evidence came to be tendered by the accused in a proceedings initiated on a private complaint?'
Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not bar the complainant from leading further evidence after the accused's evidence.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in C.C. No.14696/1991. After the accused led evidence, the complainant filed an application under Section 246 Cr.P.C. to be examined afresh or to lead further evidence. The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, rejected the application on 17.9.2016. The petitioner (accused) challenged this order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 200, 246, 482
