Sheela And ORS v. State Of Haryana And Another
CRM-M-8427-2023 2024:PHHC:049403
CRM-M-8427-2023
!
"
#$%&$%&'$'% " " ( "
#$)&$%&'$'% *+
,-- "
&&&
.
."
/ * -
"0 - 1- -- -
&&& 2"
# 34 &*
*
!
" # $$$$
*
5&4 %
"
! )*# ' '+ ! %,-.
/ ' ' (0 1!
+!" %- 2, #2## /3! 4%0 5!" (
#
( #* 2, #2#% /3! 470 5! % ' ( +"
#4 !
#
+ 689 "
%#% 2- 2. #2%* ! .#. .#: .7) .7) .7: .-, .*# )7# 72:
8' "
("
(
"
+ # ! %7:/.0 ' '
!+( ';84%%-4#2%*
" +
"
CRM-M-8427-2023' 2024:PHHC:049403
" !
!
%* 2% #2%*
(! -22 + #4+
%4 ! +
#4 ! + "
" +
!
1! + + 4 ! (
(!"
!"
<
"
++
#4
.4 ! + =
)4 ! +
+
!
(
!
!"
3 + ! #% 2% #2%*
(! *.2
"
+(!
(
; "
!
4 ! +
3"
.
= ! inter alia
'! (
+"
!
+ >
4 + !
3 !
+ !
( 3
! !
3 +!" ! (
8 (
"!+ !
CRM-M-8427-20236 2024:PHHC:049403
!
"
# $ %&%&'
()&
* +,% #) 27 #2%:
) = ! ! !(+
5!" (
+
'?4)
!
+
+
%7 (
"
+ + @
( !
(
!
!
( !
=
++ ! +
(
5! ! #
+
!
!
%* 2% #2%*
++ +4"
+
(
3 +
#
+ ++(
! #% 2% #2%*
!
+4"
+
! =9 ! ! +
=9 ! ++ "B (
"
"
!
!
!
=9 + ( "
CRM-M-8427-2023% 2024:PHHC:049403 :
= ! !
"!
"
"B
!"
!++"
! ( +
!
" =9
"
+
"
#4+
! !
!"
!+
"! ! !
( + ! "B (!
" + > #4+ 9 "
" " "
*- . # %
(( - / 0 # 1 * 2'- %3 4# 5 %6 4 7 $ 5-
%3 80
66 %&%&( '* #
#7 2# #2%7 -
"
!
!"
(
+"
(
+
+
( (!"
!( @
(
++
""
+
+ +
+
"
1!
!
! +
"
!
+
CRM-M-8427-2023) 2024:PHHC:049403 +
'?) ! +4"
+
4 C # !
!
!+ !"
"
(
&+ +
+
!
!"
(
3
+
4 ! ' !
%7 ""
+ + ++
43 +
1!
" 8
1! !
!
! ("
" "
"B
!++"
!
(!"
! " +
*
! !
45!"
@( !+ " " "
* -
* !"+
!
"7. Having considered the details of allegations made in the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as materials on which the appellant placed reliance which were called for by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, committed no error in summoning the accused persons. At the stage of cognizance and summoning the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other words, to find out whether prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is not required to consider the defence version or materials or arguments nor he is required to
CRM-M-8427-20237 2024:PHHC:049403 evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out at this stage whether the materials will lead to conviction or not.
8. It is also well settled that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. Hence at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. But such exercise is required only at a later stage, as indicated above and not at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the basis of prima facie case. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial.
It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial.
,
5!"
@( 3 '! "
!"
5! B 95:: . / 5- )!' * !*'
( "5. Mr. Bhandare laid great stress on the words "the truth or falsehood of the complaint" and contended that in determining whether the complaint is false the Court can go into the question of the broad probabilities of the case or intrinsic infirmities appearing in the evidence. It is true that in coming to a decision as to whether a process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations but there appears to be a very thin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction of the accused and establishment of a prima facie case against him. The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him.
Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused.
CRM-M-8427-20238 2024:PHHC:049403 under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminate into an order under Section 204 of the Code. Thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside:
(1) where the allegations made in complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.
The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.
%2 8
%% '1! +
*
$)&$%&'$'% Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No