Under Section 228 Cr. P.C, the judge is not required to record detailed reasons, only prima facie cases are to be considered - Synopsis
Parul Madaan 8 Jan 2020

Under Section 228 Cr. P.C, the judge is not required to record detailed                     reasons, only prima facie cases are to be considered-                         Bhawana Bai.V. Ghanshyan & Ors. 

        Criminal Appeal No. 1820 Of 2019

In this case, the plaintiff and the members of her family heard from the neighbors that her husband was lying dead in the respondent's tank. The appellant alleged that she had been prevented from approaching her husband and locked in a room. Her husband's dead body was taken to a government hospital and, without informing her, post-mortem was conducted.

She made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken again. She subsequently filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) and was given instructions to the office-in-charge to register the FIR under Section 302 IPC and continue with the investigation. Revision was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh before the Additional Sessions Judge Challenging ACJM's order to lodge an FIR, but it was dismissed. The respondent applied for anticipatory bail, and the learned Special Judge dismissed the same, but granted it by the High Court. The instant appeal was brought before the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. While, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge brought charges against the respondents, but the High Court quashed the charges against the respondent and then released them.

The appellants argued that certain circumstances linked the respondents to the death of her husband and submitted that the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, should not have interfered with and quashed the charges set out by the trial court. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the High Court erred in rejecting the Second Additional Sessions Judge's order and quashing the charges. They claimed it was not suffering from any infirmity.

The Supreme Court held that The High Court was not correct to deal with the trial court's order setting out the charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC and Section 34 IPC and the High Court erred in quashing the charges against the accused. The High Court's impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. Sessions Trial Case shall be restored and proceed in accordance with the law.

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com