HC Cannot Make Observation Against Third Party Who Is Not Before It: Supreme Court
|The Apex Court allowed a Criminal Appeal filed against the Madras High Court's Judgment by which the prayer for quashing the chargesheet was rejected.
The Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval on an observation made by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in a Judgment relating to a cheating case.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed against the Judgment by which the prayer for quashing the chargesheet was rejected by the High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K.V. Viswanathan remarked, “Having dealt with the matter on merits, we must deal now with a slightly disturbing aspect. The parties before the High Court were: (i) the appellants (original petitioners); (ii) the State, and; (iii) the complainant. This being the position, it was plainly unnecessary for the observation infra to be made by the High Court in the Impugned Judgment”
The Bench disapproved the below observation made by the High Court –
“10. … If this Petition is allowed, the Petitioners’ son will spoil women of marriageable age in the same manner…”
AOR G. Balaji appeared for the Appellants while Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the Respondents.
Facts
As per the prosecution case, the Complainant alleged that she was in a relationship with the son of the Appellants and established physical relations with him only on the assurance that he would marry her. On one occasion, the son of the Appellants had allegedly taken her to meet them where they also agreed to accept her as their daughter in-law, but later, the son allegedly informed her that the Appellants had fixed his marriage with someone else.
Arguments
The counsel for the Appellants submitted that nowhere in the entire Complaint there is any allegation that the parents had instigated or had misrepresented to the Complainant that they would get her married to their son and that was the basis for the Complainant to have developed physical relation(s) with the appellants’ son. Further, it was contended that there is no allegation that the Appellants forced the son to marry another girl and that they had any knowledge of the intimate relationship of their son with the Complainant.
On the other hand, the counsel for the Complainant submitted that the role of the Appellants is crucial since they were the parents and only upon their assurance, the Complainant had agreed to a physical relationship. The senior counsel for the State submitted that the Appellants cannot be held liable, much less, held criminally liable under Sections 417 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Reasoning
The Apex Court in the above regard, observed, “… from what is alleged in the complaint itself, we do not find that there is any act or conduct on the part of the appellants which can be termed to be illegal per se, much less criminal in nature. No ingredients of any offence under the IPC appear to be forthcoming. As such, we are unable to hold that any offence under the ambit of Section 415 of the IPC is made out against the instant appellants.”
Considering the age and educational qualification of the Complainant, the Court refused to accept the fact the Appellants’ statement/conduct led the Complainant to develop intimate relations with their son.
“In any event, from a bare perusal of the complaint, it is evincible that the main allegations are against the appellants’ son. As noted in the Impugned Judgment, the son had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code, which was later withdrawn. Grant of relief, therefore, to the appellants would not adversely impact the case against the appellants’ son, inasmuch as the appellants’ son can independently be proceeded against in P.R.C. No.16/2022”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, said that the trial against the Appellants would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the same needs to be nipped in the bud.
“The High Court, we would have expected, should have been cognisant that the appellants’ son was not before it. … The High Court has said what it did, without any notice/opportunity to the appellants’ son and without the benefit of having his say/version before it.”, remarked the Court in its parting note.
Hence, the Court directed that the extract from Para 10 of the Impugned Judgment shall stand deleted from the High Court’s records.
“Our intervention on this score does not water down the dicta in Para 11 of this Order”, it also clarified.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, quashed the proceedings against the Appellants, and directed that its Order copy be dispatched to the Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Madurai Bench.
Cause Title- Marippan & Anr. v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 163)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR G. Balaji, Advocates Avinash Wadhwani, and Neeleshwar Pavani.
Respondents: Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Devyani Gupta, Arjoo Rawat, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Danish Saifi, A. Renganath, and R. Ayyam Perumal.