{"id":37549,"date":"1976-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976"},"modified":"2015-06-14T03:38:18","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T22:08:18","slug":"smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1947, \t\t 1976 SCR 123<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. NAGAWWA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVEERANNA SHIVALlNGAPPA KONJALGI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/04\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1947\t\t  1976 SCR  123\n 1976 SCC  (3) 736\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1978 SC1568\t (5,9)\n F\t    1983 SC  67\t (8)\n R\t    1984 SC 718\t (31)\n R\t    1985 SC 628\t (55,68)\n RF\t    1989 SC 885\t (7)\n RF\t    1992 SC 604\t (103)\n F\t    1992 SC1894\t (8)\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of Criminal  Procedure, ss. 202, 204-Enquiry under\ns. 202-Scope of -Accused if had locus standi.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  filed a  complaint before the Magistrate\nalleging that  the police  did not deliberately charge-sheet\nunrespondents 1\t and 2 despite the fact that they abetted in\nthe murder of her son because they were influential persons.\nAfter  the  inquiry  the  Magistrate  issued  a\t process  to\nrespondents 1  under 2\tunder s.  204(1)(b) of\tthe Code  of\nCriminal  Procedure,   1973.  The   revision   petition\t  of\nrespondents I  and 2  filed under s. 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed\nby the\tHigh Court. in appeal to this Court it was contended\nfor. the  appellant that  the High  Court was  in  error  in\nexamining the order of the Magistrate on merits after taking\ninto consideration  the documents  filed by the respondents,\nwhich did  not\tform  part  of\tthe  complaint\tor  evidence\nrecorded in support thereof before the Magistrate.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: The\torder of  the  High  Court  suffers  from  a\nserious legal  infirmity and the High Court has exceeded its\njurisdiction in\t interfering in\t revision  by  question\t the\norder of the Magistrate. [129 H]\n     (1) In  the following  cases an order or the Magistrate\ncan be quashed or set aside:\n     (a) Where\tthe allegations made in the complaint or the\nstatements of  the witnesses recorded in support of the same\ntaken at  their face  value  make  out\tabsolutely  no\tcase\nagainst the  accused or\t the complaint does not disclose the\nessential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against\nthe accused;\n     (b) Where\tthe allegations\t made in  the complaint\t are\npatently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent\nperson can  ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient\nground for proceeding against the accused.\n     (c) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in\nissuing process\t is capricious\tand  arbitrary\thaving\tbeen\nbased either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly\nirrelevant or inadmissible; and\n     (d) Where\tthe complaint suffers from fundamental legal\ndefects,  such\tas,  want  of  sanction,  or  absence  of  a\ncomplaint by  legally competent authority and the like. [128\nC-E]\n     (2) (a)  At  the  stage  of  issuing  the\tprocess\t the\nMagistrate is  mainly concerned with allegations made in the\ncomplaint or  the evidence  led and  he is only. to be prima\nfacie satisfied\t whether there\tare sufficient\tgrounds\t for\nproceeding against  the accused.  It is\t not the province of\nthe   Magistrate to  enter into a detailed discussion on the\nmerits or  demerits of\tthe case.  The scope  of the inquiry\nunder s.  202 Cr.P.C.  is extremely  limited -limited to the\nascertainment of  the truth  or falsehood of the allegations\nmade in\t the complaint:\t (1) on\t the materials placed by the\ncomplainant before the court (ii) for the limited purpose of\nfinding out  whether a prima facie case for issue of process\nhad been made out and (iii) for deciding the question purely\nfrom the  point of  view of  the complainant  without at all\nadverting to  any defence  that the  accused  may  have.  In\nproceedings under  s. 202  the accused has got absolutely no\nlocus standing\tand is\tnot entitled  to  be  heard  on\t the\nquestion whether the process should be issued against him or\nnot. [126 F; 127 E-F]\n124\n     Chandra Deo  Singh v.  Prokash Chandra  Bose,<\/a> [1964]  1\nS.C.R.\t63.9   and  Vadilal  Panchal  v.  Dattatraya  Dulaji\nGhadigaonker and Another,<\/a> [1961] 1 S.C.R. 1. followed.\n     (b) In  coming to\ta decision  as to  whether a process\nshould be  issued the Magistrate can take into consideration\ninherent  improbabilities  appearing  on  the  face  of\t the\ncomplaint or  in evidence  led by the complainant in support\nof  the\t allegations.  Once  the  Magistrate  has  exercised\njudicially the\tdiscretion given  to him  it is\t not for the\nHigh  Court  or\t even  this  Court  to\tsubstitute  its\t own\ndiscretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case\non merits  with a  view to  find  out  whether\tor  not\t the\nallegations in\tthe complaint,\tif proved,  would ultimately\nend in\tconviction of  the accused. These considerations are\ntotally foreign\t to the\t scope and ambit of inquiry under 5.\n202 of\tthe Code  of Criminal Procedure, which culminates in\nan order under s. 204 of the Code. [127G-H; 128A-B]\n     (3) In  the instant case the High Court should not have\nquashed the  proceedings. The  order of the Magistrate was a\nreasoned one  which took  into consideration the allegations\nin the\tcomplaint as also the evidence adduced in support of\nit. It\twas not\t a case\t where the  Magistrate had passed an\norder ill a mechanical manner or just by way of routine. The\nHigh Court  could not  to into this matter in its revisional\njurisdiction which is a very limited one. [ 128 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 99
\nof 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated 16-12-75\tof the\tKarnataka  High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nPetition No. 50 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     N. B. Datar and R. B. Datar for the Appellant.
\n     M. C.  Bhandare, (Mrs.)  S. Bhandare,  M. S.  Narsimhan
\nSharma, and A. K. Mathur for Respondents I and 2.\n<\/p>\n
     Narayan Nettar for Respondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J. This appeal by special leave is directed
\nagainst the judgment of the Karnataka High Court by which it
\nset aside  the order  of the Additional Judicial Magistrate,
\nFirst Class, Gokak issuing process against respondents 1 & 2
\nin exercise  of his  discretion under  s. 204 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure.  The facts of the case lie within a very
\nnarrow compass\tand although  the High Court has taken great
\npains to  write a  laboured judgment  the point\t involved is
\nshort and  simple and  does not merit a detailed discussion.
\nThe police  of Gokak Police Station submitted a charge-sheet
\nagainst Nagappa\t Giddannavar and seven others under ss. 302,
\n114, 148,  147 and other sections on the allegations that on
\nJuly 19,  1973 the  accused persons had waylaid and murdered
\none  Nagappa  son  of  the  appellant  in  this\t Court.\t The
\nappellant, who\thad filed  the report before the police does
\nnot appear  to have bean satisfied with the investigation by
\nthe police  which according  to\t her  was  tainted  and\t had
\nsuppressed  some  important  materials,\t filed\ta  complaint
\nbefore the  Magistrate at  Gokak on October 4, 1973 alleging
\nthat respondents  1 &  2 had  in fact abetted the offence of
\nmurder committed  by the  other accused\t but  as  they\twere
\ninfluential
\n125<\/span>
\npersons their names were deliberately left out in the report
\nas also in the dying declaration. On receiving the complaint
\non October 4, 1973 the Magistrate decided to hold an inquiry
\ninto the  complaint himself and in pursuance of his decision
\nhe recorded some evidence on October 8, 1973. Thereafter the
\ncase was  posted for  October 10,  1973\t for  arguments\t and
\nfurther evidence, if any. On October 10, 1973 the Magistrate
\nobserved that  six  witnesses  had  been  examined  and\t the
\nevidence recorded  so far  was sufficient  for the  Court to
\ndetermine the  question as  to whether or not process should
\nbe issued  to respondents  1 & 2. He then adjourned the case
\nfor argument  for October  12, 1973.  On that  day arguments
\nwere  heard  but  before  any  order  could  be\t passed\t the
\nMagistrate who had recorded the evidence was transferred and
\ntherefore the  case had\t to be adjourned. The new Magistrate
\ntook up\t the matter  on November  26, 1973 and after hearing
\nthe complainant\t he adjourned  the case\t to December 3, 1973
\nand on this day he directed that further inquiry may be made
\nby Superintendent  of Police,  Belgaum\tand  he\t accordingly
\nreferred  the\tmatter\tfor   inquiry  and   report  to\t the
\nSuperintendent of  Police, Belgaum  asking him to submit his
\nreport within  six weeks. It seems to us that in view of the
\nchange of  the Magistrate  the successor  Magistrate was not
\nable to\t grasp the implications of the proceedings which had
\nbeen taken  by .  his predecessor  who\thad  in\t fact  first
\ndecided to  hold an  inquiry himself and after recording the
\nevidence had  decided to  pass an  order under s. 204 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure. Before however he could pass any
\norder he  was  succeeded  by  the  present  Magistrate.\t The
\nappellant filed an application in revision to the High Court
\non December  11, 1973  against the  order of  the Magistrate
\ndated  December\t  3,  1973   referring\tthe  matter  to\t the
\nSuperintendent of  Police for  inquiry and report. While the
\napplication was pending before the High Court, respondents 1
\n& 2  filed a  petition before  the High Court praying for an
\nearly hearing  of the  revision and for vacation of the stay
\norder. Along  with this\t petition the  respondents  filed  a
\nnumber of  documents including\tthe copies  of the petitions
\nsent by the appellant to the Chief Minister and the Speaker.
\nWe might indicate here that there was absolutely no occasion
\nfor the\t respondents to\t have filed the documents before the
\nHigh Court  in a  miscellaneous petition nor did they obtain
\nany permission\tof the Court for filing those documents. The
\nHigh Court,  after hearing the revision application filed be
\nthe appellant, allowed the same mainly on the ground that as
\nthe Magistrate\thad ultimately\tdecided to  hold an  inquiry
\ninto the  truth or falsehood of the complaint himself he had
\nno jurisdiction\t to  stop  that\t inquiry  and  then  make  a
\nreference to  the police  afresh. The High Court accordingly
\nquashed the  order of  the Magistrate  and directed  him  to
\ndecide the  case in  accordance with the law after recording
\nfurther evidence, if any. It appears that the High Court did
\nnot give  any directions  to the  Magistrate for considering
\nthe documents which had been filed by the respondents before
\nit but\tby a subsequent order merely forwarded the documents
\nto  the\t Magistrate.  The  papers  were\t sent  back  to\t the
\nMagistrate on January 7, 1975 and by his order dated January
\n27, 1975  the Magistrate was informed that the appellant did
\nnot want  to adduce  any further  evidence. The\t matter\t was
\naccordingly posted  for argument  on February  7,  1975\t and
\nafter hearing the
\n126<\/span>
\narguments and  considering  the\t evidence  recorded  by\t the
\nMagistrate he  by his order dated February 11, 1975 directed
\nprocess to  be issued  against respondents  1 &\t 2 under  s.
\n204(1) (b)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondents 1
\n& 2 then preferred a revision against this order to the High
\nCourt under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying
\nthat the  order of  the\t Magistrate  may  be  quashed.\tThis
\nrevision was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order
\nagainst which special leave was granted by this Court at the
\ninstance of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     In support of the appeal Mr. H. B. Datar submitted that
\nthe Magistrate\thad given  cogent reasons  for holding\tthat
\nthere  were   sufficient  grounds   for\t proceeding  against
\nrespondents 1  & 2  and the  High  Court  was  in  error  in
\ninterfering with  the order  of the  Magistrate by examining
\nthe merits  of the  case after taking into consideration the
\ndocuments filed by the respondents which could not be looked
\ninto by\t the Magistrate\t as they  did not  form part  of the
\ncomplaint or  the evidence  recorded in\t support thereof. In
\nour opinion the contention raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant  is well-founded\tand must  prevail. Mr. M. C.
\nBhandare sought\t to repel  the argument\t of the appellant on
\nthe ground that the order of the Magistrate was perverse and
\nas  the\t  case\twas  full  of  patent  absurdities  and\t was
\npolitically motivated  the prosecution\tof respondents 1 & 2
\nwould amount to unnecessary harassment resulting in abuse of
\nthe process of the Court. In the view we take in the instant
\ncase it\t is not necessary for us to enter into the merits of
\nthe case  at this stage. It is well settled by a long catena
\nof decisions  of this  Court that  at the  stage of  issuing
\nprocess\t the   Magistrate  is\tmainly\tconcerned  with\t the
\nallegations made  in the  complaint or\tthe evidence  led in
\nsupport of  the same  and he  is  only\tto  be\tprima  facie
\nsatisfied  whether   there  are\t  sufficient   grounds\t for
\nproceeding against  the accused.  It is\t not the province of
\nthe Magistrate\tto enter  into a  detailed discussion of the
\nmerits or  demerits of\tthe case  nor can  the High Court go
\ninto this  matter in  its revisional jurisdiction which is a
\nvery limited one.\n<\/p>\n
     In Chandra\t Deo Singh  v. Prokash\tChandra Bose<\/a>(1) this
\nCourt had  after fully\tconsidering the\t matter observed  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The courts  have also  pointed out in these cases
\n     that what the Magistrate has to see is whether there is
\n     evidence  in   support  of\t  the  allegations   of\t the
\n     complainant and  not whether the evidence is sufficient
\n     to warrant\t a conviction. The learned Judges in some of
\n     these cases  have been  at pains  to  observe  that  an
\n     enquiry under  s. 202  is not  to be likened to a trial
\n     which can\tonly take place after process is issued, and
\n     that there\t can be\t only one trial. No doubt, as stated
\n     in sub-s.\t(1) of\ts. 202\titself, the  object  of\t the
\n     enquiry is\t to ascertain  the truth or falsehood of the
\n     complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to
\n     do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of
\n     the statements  made before  him at  the enquiry  which
\n     would  naturally\tmean  the   complaint  itself,\t the
\n     statement on oath made by the complainant
\n(1) (1964)1 S. C. R. 639, 648
\n127<\/span>
\n     and the  statements made before him by persons examined
\n     at the instance of the complainant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Indicating the\tscope, ambit  of  s.  202  of  the  Code  of
\nCriminal  Procedure   this  Court   in\tVadilal\t Panchal  v.
\nDattatrya Dulaji  Ghadigaonker and  Another<\/a>(1)\tobserved  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 202\tsays that  the Magistrate may, if he
\n     thinks lit,  for reasons  to be  recorded\tin  writing,
\n     postpone  the  issue  of  process\tfor  compelling\t the
\n     attendance of  the person complained against and direct
\n     an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or
\n     falsehood of  the complaint;  in other words, the scope
\n     of an  inquiry under  the section is limited to finding
\n     out the truth or falsehood of the complaint in order to
\n     determine the  question of\t the issue  of process.\t The
\n     inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or
\n     falsehood of  the complaint;  that is, for ascertaining
\n     whether there  is evidence\t in support of the complaint
\n     so as to justify. the issue of process and commencement
\n     of\t proceedings   against\tthe  person  concerned.\t The
\n     section does not say that a regular trial for adjudging
\n     the guilt or otherwise of the person complained against
\n     should  take  place  at  that  stage;  for\t the  person
\n     complained against\t can`  be  legally  called  upon  to
\n     answer; the  accusation made  against him\tonly when  a
\n     process has issued and he is put on trial.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It would  thus be\tclear from the two decisions of this
\nCourt that  the scope  of the  inquiry under  s. 202 of the.
\nCode of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited-limited only
\nto the\tascertainment of  the truth  of\t falsehood,  of\t the
\nallegations made  in  the  complaint-(1)  on  the  materials
\nplaced by  the complaint  before the  Court.  (ii)  for\t the
\nlimited purpose\t of finding  out whether  a prima facie case
\nfor issue  of process  has been\t made  out;  and  (iii)\t for
\ndeciding the  question purely  from the point of view of the
\ncomplainant without  at all  adverting to  any defence that,
\nthe accused  may have.\tIn fact\t it is\twell settled that in
\nproceedings under  s. 202  the accused has got absolutely no
\nlocus us  standi and  is not  entitled to  be heard  on\t the
\nquestion whether the process should be issued against him or
\nnot.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Bhandare  laid great stress on the words “the truth
\nor  falsehood  of  the\tcomplaint”  and\t contended  that  in
\ndetermining whether  the complaint is false the Court can go
\ninto the  question of the broad probabilities of the case or
\nintrinsic infirmities appearing\t in the evidence. It is true
\nthat in\t coming to a decision as to whether a process should
\nbe  issued   the  Magistrate  can  take\t into  consideration
\ninherent  improbabilities  appearing  on  the  face  of\t the
\ncomplaint or  in the  evidence led  by the  complainant\t ill
\nsupport of  the allegations  but there\tappears to be a very
\nthin line of demarcation between a probability of conviction
\nof the\taccused and  establishment of  a  prima\t facie\tcase
\nagainst him.  The Magistrate  has been\tgiven  an  undoubted
\ndiscretion in  the matter  and\tthe  discretion\t has  to  be
\njudicially  exercised\tby  him.  Once\tthe  Magistrate\t has
\nexercise his discretion it is not for
\n     (1) [1961] 1 S. C. R. 1, 9.\n<\/p>\n
128<\/span><\/p>\n
the High  Court, or  even this\tCourt, to substitute its own
\ndiscretion for.\t that of  the Magistrate  or to\t examine the
\ncase on\t merits with  view to  find out\t whether or  not the
\nallegations in\tthe complaint,\tif proved,  would ultimately
\nend in\tconviction of  the accused. These considerations, in
\nour opinion,  are totally  foreign to the scope and ambit of
\nan inquiry  under s.  202 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
\nwhich culminates  into an  order under\ts. 2042 of the Code.
\nThus it\t may be\t safely held  that in the following cases an
\norder of  the Magistrate issuing process against the accused
\ncan be quashed or set aside:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (1)  Where the  allegations made  in the complaint
\n\t       or the  statements of  the witnesses recorded
\n\t       in support  of the  same taken  at their face
\n\t       value make out absolutely no case against the
\n\t       accused or  the complaint  does net  disclose
\n\t       the essential ingredients of an offence which
\n\t       is alleged against the accused;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  where the  allegations made  in the complaint
\n\t       are patently absurd and inherently improbable
\n\t       so that\tno prudent  person can\tever reach a
\n\t       conclusion that\tthere is  sufficient  ground
\n\t       for proceeding against the accused;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  where   the  discretion\t exercised  by\t the
\n\t       Magistrate in  issuing process  is capricious
\n\t       and arbitrary  having been based either on no
\n\t       evidence or  on materials  which\t are  wholly
\n\t       irrelevant or inadmissible; and .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (4)  where the  complaint suffers from fundamental
\n\t       legal defects,  such as, want of sanction, or
\n\t       absence of  a complaint\tby legally competent
\n\t       authority and the like.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The cases  mentioned  by  us  are  purely  illustrative\t and
\nprovide\t sufficient  guidelines\t to  indicate  contingencies
\nwhere the High Court can quash proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     Applying these principles to the facts of facts present
\ncase it\t seems to  US that  the present\t case is  not one in
\nwhich the High Court should have quashed the proceedings. To
\nbegin with,  the order\tof the Magistrate dated February 11,
\n1975 issuing  process against respondents 1 and `2 is a very
\nwell  reasoned\t one  which  takes  into  consideration\t the
\nallegations in the complaint as also the evidence adduced in
\nsupport of  it. The  Magistrate clearly applied his mind and
\nhas analysed  the evidence  into three\tcategories-(1) those
\nwitnesses who  have deposed  as eye  witnesses regarding the
\nactual occurrence  and the  part attributed to respondents 1
\nand 2.\tThe Magistrate\tthen refers  to other  witnesses who
\ncorroborated the  evidence of  the complainant,\t and thirdly
\nthe Magistrate\trelied on the evidence of witnesses who were
\nadmittedly signatories\tto the\tdying  declaration  and\t had
\nclearly stated on oath that the names of respondents 1 and 2
\nwere mentioned\tin their  presence by  the deceased but were
\nnot recorded  by the  Police Patel  in the dying declaration
\nand in\tspite of the protest by the witnesses they were made
\nto sign\t the dying  declaration as attesting witnesses under
\nthreat and  duress. On\ta consideration of this evidence the
\nMagistrate was satis-\n<\/p>\n
129<\/span><\/p>\n
fied that a prima facie case against respondents 1 and 2 was
\nmade out  and he accordingly issued process against them. It
\nwas not\t a case\t where the  Magistrate had  passed an  order
\nissuing process\t In a  mechanical manner  or just  by way of
\nroutine. The  High Court appears to have gone into the whole
\nhistory of  the case,  examined the  merits of the evidence,
\nthe contradictions  and what  it called\t the improbabilities
\nand after  a detailed  discussion not  only of the materials
\nproduced before\t the Magistrate\t but also  of  the  document
\nwhich had  been filed  by the  defence and  which should not
\nhave been  looked into\tat the\tstage when  the\t matter\t was
\npending under  s. 202,\thas  held  that\t the  order  of\t the
\nMagistrate was\tillegal and  was fit  to be  quashed. In the
\nfirst place  the High Court ought not to have considered the
\ndocument filed\tby respondents\t1  and\t2  in  the  previous
\nrevision without  obtaining the permission of the Court and`
\nparticularly when  the High  Court itself gave no directions
\nwhatsoever to  the Magistrate  to consider those  documents.
\nIn fact\t the  Magistrate  considering  the  question  as  to
\nwhether process\t should be issued against the accused or not
\ncannot be  into the  materials placed  by  the\taccused\t and
\ntherefore the  High Court  could not  have  given  any\tsuch
\ndirections while  disposing of\tthe previous,  revision. The
\nimpugned order\tof the High Court proceeds on the basis that
\nit was\tincumbent on  the Magistrate  to have considered the
\ndocuments and  their effect on the truth or falsehood of the
\nallegations made  by the  complainant. This  was an entirely
\nwrong approach\tAs we  arc clearly  of the  opinion that the
\nMagistrate was\tfully justified\t in completely excluding the
\ndocuments from\tconsideration, we  refrain from\t making\t any
\nobservation regarding  the, effect  of those  documents.  In
\nfact the documents filed by the respondents were mere copies
\nand they  were, therefore,  not admissible.  At any rate, at
\nthe stage  of s.  202, or  s. 204  of the  Code of  Criminal
\nProcedure as  the accused had no locus standi the Magistrate
\nhad absolutely\tno jurisdiction\t to go into any materials or
\nevidence which\tmay be\tproduced by the accused who could be
\npresent only to watch the proceedings and not to participate
\nin them. Indeed if the documents or the evidence produced by
\nthe accused is allowed to be taken by the Magistrate then an
\ninquiry under  s. 202 would have to be converted into a full
\ndress trial defeating the very object for which this section
\nhas been  engrafted he\tHigh Court  in quashing the order of
\nthe Magistrate\tcompletely failed.  to consider\t the limited
\nscope of  an inquiry  under s. 202.  Having gone through the
\norder of  the Magistrate  we do\t not find  any error  or law
\ncommitted  by\thim.  The   Magistrate\twas  exercises’\t his
\ndiscretion and\thas given cogent reasons for his conclusion.
\nWhether\t the  reasons  were,  good  or\tbad,  sufficient  or
\ninsufficient, is not a matter which could have been examined
\nby the\tHigh Court  ill\t revision.  We\tare  constrained  to
\nobserve that  the High\tCourt went  out of  its way  write a
\nlaboured judgment highlighting certain aspect of the case of
\nthe accused  as appearing  from the documents filed ‘of them
\nwhich they  were not  entitled to  file and  which were\t not
\nentitled in law to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
     For these reasons, therefore, we arc satisfied that the
\norder of  the  High  Court  suffers  from  a  serious  legal
\ninfirmity and the High Court
\n     11-833 SCI\/76
\n130<\/span>
\nhas exceeded  its jurisdiction in interfering in revision by
\nquashing the  order of\tthe Magistrate. We, therefore, allow
\nthe appeal,  set aside\tthe order  of the  High Court  dated
\nDecember 16,  1975 and\trestore the  order of the Magistrate
\nissuing\t  process   against   respondents   1\tand   2.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  time of  granting the  special  leave,  we\t has
\ndirected the Sessions Judge who was trying the original case
\nresulting from\tthe F.I.R.  lodged before the police to stay
\nproceedings to\tthe extent  that the  judgment was not to be
\npronounced until  this appeal was disposed of. We understand
\nthat the  Sessions case\t is now concluded before the learned
\nSessions Judge and arguments have also been heard. 1 view of
\nthe  order   of\t the   Magistrate  issuing  process  against
\nrespondents 1\tand  2 which  has been\tconfirmed by us, the
\nrespondents will  have to  face a supplementary trial and it
\nis not\tconducive in  the interests  of justice to allow the
\nother trial  to be stayed any further. The Sessions Judge is
\ntherefore directed  to dispose\tof the Sessions Case and the
\nstay granted by this Court earlier is Vacated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t    Appeal  allowed.\n<\/p>\n
131<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1947, 1976 SCR 123 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: SMT. NAGAWWA Vs. RESPONDENT: VEERANNA SHIVALlNGAPPA KONJALGI DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/04\/1976 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA GUPTA, A.C. CITATION: 1976 AIR 1947 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\"},\"wordCount\":3172,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\",\"name\":\"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976","datePublished":"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976"},"wordCount":3172,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976","name":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T22:08:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagawwa-vs-veeranna-shivallngappa-konjalgi-on-23-april-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Nagawwa vs Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi on 23 April, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=37549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}