front page › Forums › Criminal Law Discourse › Karnataka HC quashed FIR against Nityananda Swami on the grounds of vague allegations and abuse the process of law
Tagged: CRIMINAL REVISION
- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 months, 1 week ago by advtanmoy.
03/03/2023 at 22:40 #125254advtanmoyKeymaster
Merely because the petitioner is the head of that Ashram where the alleged incident occurred, in the absence of any specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner instigated his disciples to assault or abuse the complainant, no offence is made out against the petitioner.
[See the full post at: Karnataka HC quashed FIR against Nityananda Swami on the grounds of vague allegations and abuse the process of law]03/03/2023 at 22:58 #125257advtanmoyKeymaster
Revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner.
Hon’ble Apex Court in case of AMITH KAPOOR Vs. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in (2012)9 SCC 460. Paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of the said decision reads as under:
” 12. Section 397 of the Code vest the Court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well founded error and it may not be appropriate for the Courts to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are no exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher Court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex-facie. Whether the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially forms within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the Cr.P.C.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.