SUBRATA DASversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

                [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 368


A                        SUBRATA DAS
                                v.
                STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2004)
                       OCTOBER 22, 2010
B
         [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Complaint
    under provisions of /PC and Scheduled Castes and
C   Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Initially,
    Magistrate did not find prima facie case against the accused
    - Later, on the case being remanded by the revisional court,
    he examined afresh the witness who had been were already
    examined and held that prima facie case was made out
D   against the accused - Revisional court upholding the order
    of Magistrate - Petition for quashing the proceedings,
    dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held : The High Court
    rightly did not quash the proceedings - The scope of power
    u/s. 482 is limited and can be exercised by the High Court
E   sparingly - On facts, prima facie case was made out against
    the accused - The mistake, by the Magistrate in examining
    afresh the witnesses already examined, would not vitiate the
    proceedings - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 341, 323, 506 and 384
    - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
F   Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 3(1) and 2(vii).

      Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the
  appellant, alleging commission of offences under IPC and
  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
  Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Judicial Magistrate held that no
G case was made out. In revision, the Sessions Judge
  remanded the matter to the Magistrate for reviewing the
  same afresh. The order of remand passed by the
  Sessions Judge was upheld by the High Court holding
  the direction as a part of the further inquiry. The
H                             368
 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. 369


Magistrate recorded afresh the depositions of the A
witnesses already examined before him and concluded
that a prima facie case was made out. In revision,
Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the Magistrate. The
appellant preferred a petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C., which was
dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the instant s
appeal was filed.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD : 1.1 There is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order. The power vested in the High Court           C
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing
an on-going investigation, complaint or other
proceedings only in cases where either there is legal bar
to the continuance of the proceedings such as the
absence of a sanction wherever required or where             D
averments made in the complaint or first information
report even if accepted on their face value do not
constitute an offence or where there is no legal evidence
to support the charge made against the accused. It is also
fairly settled that the powers vested in the High Court      E
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly
and that the court cannot be called upon to appreciate
the available evidence or material with a view to find out
whether the charge leveled against the accused stands
proved. [Para 5] [373-D-G]                                   F

    Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of UP. and Ors. AIR 1999
SC 2554; State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal and Ors. 2004 Crl.L.J.
3866; State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr (2002)
3 SCC 89; Central Bureau of Investigation v. K.M. Sharan
2008 (4) SCC 471; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal G
and Ors. 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335; R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388 - Referred to.

    2.1 A plain reading of the complaint filed by the
                                                             H
    370    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   complainant in the instant case makes out a case against
    the accused. The depositions of the three witnesses
    examined by the complainant in support of his complaint
    also support the·allegations made in the complaint. The
    Magistrate was, therefore, justified in taking cognizance
B   against the appellant and the co-accused. The revisional
    court of Additional Sessions Judge, was also correct in
    holding that a case for issue of process has been made
    out. Such being the position, the High Court committed
    no error in declining to interfere u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. [Para
c   7] [37 4-8-0)

       2.2 The earlier directions by the Session Court to
  remand back the case to the Magistrate to hold a further
  enquiry, did not necessarily oblige the Magistrate to
  record any further evidence in the case. The nature of the
D inquiry was in the discretion of the Magistrate which may
  or may not have included recording of further evidence
  on behalf of the complainant. The Magistrate could
  without recording any further evidence in the matter
  reappraise the averments made in the complaint and the
E material already on record to determine whether a prima
  facie case was made out against the accused persons.
  In as much as the Magistrate in the instant case
  summoned the witnesses and examined them afresh, he
  may have gone beyond what was legally necessary to do,
F but that is no reason to hold that the recording of
  evidence by the Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry
  directed by the High Court would vitiate the proceedings
  before him or the conclusion drawn on the basis of any
  such enquiry. So long as the Magistrate was satisfied that
G a prima facie case had been made out, he was competent
  to issue summons to the accused. [Para 9) [374-G-H; 375-
  A-C]

          Gurdial Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors. 1980 Crl. L.J. 955
    - referred to.
H
 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.                371


                     Case Law Reference:                       A
    AIR (1999) SC 2554          Referred to        Para 6
    (2004) Crl.L.J. 3866        Referred to        Para 6

    c2002) 3 sec 89             Referred to        Para 6
                                                               B
    c2008) 4 sec 471            Referred to        Para 6

    (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335 Referred to            Para 6

    (1960) 3 SCR 388            Referred to        Para 6
                                                               c
    (1980) Crl. L.J. 955        Referred to        Para 8

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1153 of 2004.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.12.2003 of the High     D
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Cr. M.P. No. 386 of 2003.

     Rakesh Dwivedi, M.K. Dua for the Appellant.

    Gopal Prasad for the Respondents.
                                                               E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises
 out of an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
whereby a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the F
 appellant has been dismissed and an order dated 20th March,
2003 passed in Criminal Revision No.229 of 2002 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad upheld. The High Court
has taken the view that since two Courts below had concurrently
 held that a prima facie case under Sections 341, 323 and 506
IPC and Sections 3(i)(x) and 2(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and G
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had been
made out against the petitioner (appellant herein) it was not a
fit case in which the proceedings before the Magistrate could
be quashed. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:
                                                               H
    372    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A        2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent
    No.2 herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad
    against the appellant and one Shri D.B. Raman, Manager of
    TISCO Jamadoba Colliery, district Dhanbad alleging
    commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
B   506 and 384 IPC and Sections 3(1) & (2) (vii) of the Scheduled
    Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
    1989. Statements of the complainant and three other witnesses,
    Anil Bhagti, Ram Prasad and Krishna Mandal were recorded
    by the Court in support of the complaint. The Chief Judicial
c   Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that none of the
    allegations made against the accused were proved to be
    correct to call for action on the basis thereof. The complaint was
    accordingly dismissed.

        3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his case, the complainant
D filed a revision before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
  Dhanbad who examined the matter at length including the
  evidence on record and came to the conclusion that a prima
  facie case had indeed been made out by the complainant
  against the accused. The order passed by the Chief Judicial
E Magistrate was accordingly set aside and the matter remanded
  back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad for "reviewing
  the same afresh" after going into the details of evidence on
  record and the relevant provisions of law. A revision was then
  filed by the accused including the appellant herein before the
F High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, in which it was, inter alia,
  contended that since the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no
  power to review his own orders the direction issued by the 5th
  Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was legally erroneous.
  The High Court, however, clarified that the directions issued by
G the 5th Additional Sessions Judge was a direction for a further
  enquiry to be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under
  Section 398 Cr.P.C.

       4. When the matter went back to the Chief Judicial
    Magistrate he recorded the depositions of the complainant as
H
 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.                      373
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
also the witnesses afresh and came to the conclusion that a           A
prima facie case under the provisions referred to above has
been made out against the accused persons. Summons were
accordingly directed to be issued to the accused persons.
Aggrieved whereof the appellant filed a revision petition before
the Additional Sessions Judge which failed and was dismissed,         B
inter alia, holding that the material on record before the Court
below did make out a prima facie case against the accused
persons and that there was no legal infirmity in the order
directing issue of summons to the accused persons. The
appellant preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.           c
before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was
dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned in this
appeal.

     5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, but find
no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. It is fairly   D
well-settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this Court
that the power vested in the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing an on-going investigation,
complaint or other proceedings only in cases where either there
is legal bar to the continuance of the bar proceedings such as        E
the absence of a sanction wherever required or where
averments made in the complaint or first information report
even if accepted on their face value do not constitute an offence
or where there is no legal evidence to support the charge made
against the accused. It is also fairly settled that the powers        F
vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be
exercised sparingly and that the Court cannot be called upon
to appreciate the available evidence or material with a view to
find out whether the charge leveled against the accused stands
proved.                                                               G
     6. See Arun Shanker Shukla v. State of UP. & Ors. AIR
1999 SC 2554, State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal & Ors. 2004
Crl.L.J. 3866, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr.
(2002) 3 SCC 89 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. M.
                                                                      H
    374   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Sharan 2008 (4) SCC 471, State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan
    Lal & Ors., 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335 and R.P. Kapur v. State
    of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388.

        7. A plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant
  in the instant case makes out a case against the accused. Not
8
  only that the depositions of the three witnesses examined by
  the complainant in support of his complaint also support the
  allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate was,
  therefore, justified in taking cognizance against the appellant
  and the co-accused. The Revisional Court of Additional
C Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, was also correct in holding that a
  case for issue of process has been made out. Such being the
  position the High Court committed no error in declining to
  interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. nor is there any reason
  for us much less a compelling one to take a view different from
D the one taken by the High Court.

       8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
  Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed an error in recalling
  the witnesses and examining them afresh after the matter was
E remanded back to him for further enquiry. It was contended that
  the direction for a further enquiry could not be taken to mean
  that the Magistrate had to record afresh the depositions of the
  witnesses already examined before him. In as much as the
  Magistrate had done so in the present case he committed a
F mistake that was sufficient to vitiate the order passed by him.
  Support was drawn by the learned counsel from a Single
  Bench's decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
  Gurdial Singh v. Karlar Singh and Ors. 1980 Crl. L.J. 955.

       9. The matter as noticed by us earlier had been remanded
G back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold a further enquiry.
  That direction did not necessarily oblige the Magistrate to
  record any further evidence in the case. The nature of the inquiry
  was in the discretion of the Magistrate which may or may not
  have included recording of further evidence on behalf of the
H complainant. The Magistrate could without recording any further
 SUBRATA DAS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.                      375
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
evidence in the matter reappraise the averments made in the           A
complaint and the material already on record to determine
whether a prima facie case was made out against the accused
persons. In as much as the Magistrate in the instant case
summoned the witnesses and examined them afresh, he may
have gone beyond what.was legally necessary to do but that is         B
no reason to hold tnat the recording of evidence by the
Magistrate as a part of the further enquiry directed by the High
Court w6uld vitiate the proceedings before him or the
conclusion drawn on the basis of any such enquiry. So long as
the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case had been         c
made out, he was competent to issue summons to the accused.
All told, the alleged error sought to be pointed out by the
appellant is not of a kind that would persuade us to interfere
with the proceedings at this stage. In the result this appeal fails
and is hereby dismissed.
                                                                      D
K.K.T.                                        Appeal dismissed.