VINAY KANODIA Vs J.P.SINGH .
Bench: H.L. DATTU,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000089-000090 / 2013
Diary number: 16915 / 2011
Advocates: S. R. SETIA Vs
ARVIND KUMAR SHARMA
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.