Holding

The High Court's exercise of power under s.482 CrPC was unwarranted as the complainant was not heard and the decision was based on speculation, so the order quashing the trial court's cognizance was set aside.

Summary

Baikunth Singh filed a complaint under IPC s.406, leading the trial court to take cognizance and issue summons against respondents 2 and 3. The respondents filed a petition under CrPC s.482, impleading the appellant, and the Patna High Court quashed the trial court's order without giving any notice to the complainant, suspecting the complaint was intended to pressure the respondents in a separate dowry‑related case. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had no jurisdiction to quash the cognizance without hearing the complainant and that the decision was based on mere speculation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on presumptions and in not granting the complainant a hearing, and therefore set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court on a stipulated date without further notice, effectively restoring the trial court's cognizance.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in exercising power under CrPC s.482 to quash the trial court's order without issuing notice to the complainant.
Whether the complainant needed to be heard before the High Court could set aside the cognizance taken by the trial court.
Whether the High Court's decision was based on material facts or mere presumptions.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 3, s. 4
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 304-B, s. 34, s. 406

Subjects

Criminal ProcedureSection 482 CrPCQuashing of cognizanceRight to be heardCriminal breach of trustDowry ActPresumptionAppellate jurisdiction

Judgment

... [2008] 17 S.C.R. 561

BAIKUNTH SINGH A
}I, -; v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2035 of 2008)
DECEMBER 15, 2008
8
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA~ JJ.]
....
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Petition
~ under - Manner of disposal - Challenge to - Pursuant to a c
- complaint, trial court took cognizance under s.406 /PC and
issued summons against the accused - They filed petition
under s.482 CrPC - Complainant impleaded as a party - High
Court quashed the order of trial court without issuing notice
to the complainant - Justification of - Held: Not justified -
D
Complainant was required to be heard - Parties directed to
"

- _._ appear before High Court on stipulated date without any further
notice - Penal Code, 1860 - s.406.
Pursuant to a complaint filed by the appellant, the trial
court took cognizance under s.406, IPC and issued
E
summons against respondents 2 and 3.
Respondents 2 and 3 filed petition under s.482 CrPC,
impleading appellant as a party therein. The High Court
came to a conclusion that the appellant might have filed
the complaint case in order to pressurize the respondents
F
~ 2 and 3 not to proceed with their cross-case against
.... appellant under ss.3048, 201/34 IPC r/w ss.3 and 4 of
Dowry Act and quashed the order passed by the trial
court.
The order passed by the High Court was primarily
G
challenged in the present appeal on the ground that it
was passed without issuing notice to the appellant. It was
-' ,... ) contended that the exercise of power u/s.482 CrPC was
>....- not warranted on the facts of the case.
.....(, 561 H

,_
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
e
[2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court came to a conclusion which r "
appears to have been more on presumptions and
surmises that the case might have been filed to
pressurize the respondents 2 and 3. There was no
B material in this regard and in any event the stage for
deciding that question had not arisen. It cannot be said
to be a case where the complainant was not required to
be heard. It is more so because the proceedings were .A
initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the
c appellant which was registered as Complaint Case No.272
of 2002. In the circumstances, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the parties are directed -
to appear before the High Court on stipulated date
without any further notice. [Paras 6, 7 and 8] [5~3-D-G]
D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2035 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2006 of the,..
High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No. 9428
of 2006.
E Nagendra Rai, Anshul Raj, Shantanu Sagar, Abhishek
Anand and T. Mahipal for the Appellant. 1-
f
Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Braj Kishore Mishra,
Abhishek Jha, Vikram, Tansuhree Sinha, Ujjwal K. Jha and
Aparna Jha for the Respondents.
F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -;-.
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the
G order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Jehanabad taking cognizance of offence punishable under
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')
and issuing summons against the applicants-respondents Nos.t\ --..
2 and 3. The High Court exercised power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cod~).
H The High Court was of the view that the case might have been
BAIKUNTH SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 563
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the petitioners A
before the High Court not to proceed with the case which was
lodged under Section 304-B ,201/34 IPC r/w Sections 3 and
4 of Dowry Act against the complainant and others.
3. Various points were urged in support of the appeal.
Primarily it was submitted that the petition was disposed of B
without issuing notice to the complainant. It is submitted that
the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code was not
warranted on the facts of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 supported
the order of the High Court. Learned counsel for the State on C

- the other hand supported the stand of the appellant.
5. It is not in dispute that the present appellant was
impleaded as a party in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9428 of
2006 which was filed by respondents 2 and 3. Strangely, without
issuing any notice the petition was disposed of. D
6. The High Court has come to a conclusion which
"" appears to have been more on presumptions and surmises that
the case might have been filed to pressurize the applicants
before the High Court. There was no material in this regard and
in any event the stage for deciding that question had not arisen. E
7. It cannot be said to be a case where the complainant
was not required to be heard. It is more so because the
proceedings were initiated on the basis of the complaint filed
by the appellant which was registered as Complaint Case
No.272 of 2002. F

- 8. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order. We
direct the parties to appear before the High Court without any
further notice on 21st January, 2009. The Chief Justice of the
High Court is requested to allot the matter to an appropriate G
Bench.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
-J

- B.B.B. Appeal disposed of.