Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 89-90  OF 2013 (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.4664-4665 OF 2011)

VINAY KANODIA APPELLANT

VERSUS

J.P. SINGH & ORS.                     RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Application for impleadment is allowed.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order  

passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous  

Case No.4308 of 2009 & Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.4232 of  

2009, dated 01.03.2011.  By the impugned judgment and order,  

the High Court has quashed the entire prosecution proceedings  

for the offence under Section 323/348/365/368/506 read with 34  

and  120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (“  the  IPC”  for  

short).  

3. The facts in brief as stated in the complaint are: the  

proceedings under the Excise Act for evasion of excise duty  

were instituted by the officers of the Directorate General of  

Central Excise Intelligence (“DGCEI” for short) wherein search  

was  conducted  and  summons  were  served  in  the  name  of  the  

appellant i.e. Director of M/s. Vinay Wires.  After the service

Page 2

2

of summons were unattended for quite some time, the appellant  

was forcibly held by the officers of DGCEI from Balaji Delux  

Hotel,  Paharganj,  where  the  appellant  along  with  the  other  

directors  had  lodged,  and  wrongly  confined  them  from  12.00  

midnight of 10th November, 2009 till 1.30pm of 11th November,  

2009 and thereafter the arrest of the appellant was brought on  

record.  Subsequent  to  the  arrest,  the  appellant  filed  a  

complaint through his father- Hanuman Prasad Kanodia, before  

the Ld. Magistrate. The appellant before the Ld. Magistrate had  

brought to the notice that the respondents herein, who are the  

officers  of  the  Central  Excise  Department,  had  illegally  

detained and further brutally assaulted him.  This allegation  

of  the  Complainant  was  denied  by  the  respondent-officers.  

However, the learned Magistrate thought it fit to refer the  

complainant to be examined by a competent doctor on the same  

date.

 4. The  doctor,  after  examining  the  Complainant  and  after  

going  through  the  number  of  injuries  on  the  body  of  the  

Complainant,  has  observed  that  the  Complainant  has  suffered  

multiple  injuries  on  his  body.  Therefore,  the  learned  

Magistrate after examining the injuries reflected on the Medico  

legal Case Report (“MLC Report” for short) was of the opinion  

that the  appellant was tortured and beaten mercilessly while  

in custody, and therefore has taken cognizance under Sections  

323, 348, 365, 368, 506 read with 34 and 120-B of the IPC.

Page 3

3

5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Magistrate  

with respect to the issue of cognizance of the complaint filed  

by  the  complainant,  the  respondents-  herein  had  filed  a  

petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  

before the High Court, inter alia, requesting the High Court to  

quash the entire proceedings initiated by the Complainant.

6. The High Court, in our opinion, though has noticed the  

number of injuries sustained by the Complainant, but on a very  

technical ground, has allowed the petition and set aside the  

entire proceedings.

7. We have carefully perused the order passed by the learned  

Magistrate in taking cognizance of the complaint and also the  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  while  setting  aside  the  

proceedings  initiated  by  the  Complainant  before  the  learned  

Magistrate.  In our opinion, the learned Judge of the High  

Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and  

order.  Therefore, while allowing these appeals, we set aside  

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Now,  

we  direct  the  learned  Magistrate  to  complete  the  criminal  

proceedings  as  early  as  possible,  at  any  rate,  within  six  

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's  

order.  Any observation made by us in the course of this order  

is only for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. We clarify  

further, that, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits  

or demerits of the stand taken by both the parties.

Page 4

4

All the legal pleas are kept open.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 10, 2013.