India News | Consequences of Scuttling Criminal Process at Pre-trial Stage Can Be Grave and Irreparable: SC
Get latest articles and stories on India at LatestLY. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the consequences of scuttling criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable.
New Delhi, Apr 26 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the consequences of scuttling criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable.
A bench of Justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy passed the verdict while dealing with a plea seeking quashing of summons issued by the magistrate court in a cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
It said, “The consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre-trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence”.
The bench said that if this is allowed, the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process.
“Also because of the legal presumption, when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant, the balance of convenience at this stage is in favour of the complainant/prosecution, as the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption”, it said.
The bench said that in a situation where the accused moves Court for quashing even before trial has commenced, the Court's approach should be careful enough to not to prematurely extinguish the case by disregarding the legal presumption which supports the complaint.
“At any rate, whenever facts are disputed the truth should be allowed to emerge by weighing the evidence”, it said.
Dealing with the facts of the case, the bench said on careful reading of the complaint and the order passed by the magistrate, what is discernible is that a possible view is taken that the cheques drawn were in discharge of a debt for purchase of shares.
“In any case, when there is legal presumption, it would not be judicious for the quashing Court to carry out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged, without first permitting the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of the parties. The quashing Court should not take upon itself the burden of separating the wheat from the chaff where facts are contested,” it said.
To say it differently, the quashing proceedings must not become an expedition into the merits of factual dispute, so as to conclusively vindicate either the complainant or the defence, the bench said.
“The proposition of law as set out makes it abundantly clear that the Court should be slow to grant the relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage when the factual controversy is in the realm of possibility particularly because of the legal presumption, as in this matter," it said.
The bench said that what is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint.
“Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious,” the bench said.
It added that based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court.
“Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited,” it said.
The bench did not find any fault with the verdict of Delhi High Court which has refused to interfere with the orders of magistrate to issue summons and said in our assessment, the impugned judgment is rendered by applying the correct legal principles and the High Court rightly declined relief to the accused, in the quashing proceeding.
“Having said this, to rebut the legal presumption against him, the appellant must also get a fair opportunity to adduce his evidence in an open trial by an impartial judge who can dispassionately weigh the material to reach the truth of the matter,” the bench said.
(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)