Hon’ble Supreme Court : Obliquity In Order To Take Cognizance Will Not Void In Criminal Proceedings

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an obliquity in the order take cognizance will not void the proceedings in a criminal trial.

A bench consisting Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice B.V. Nagarathna was deciding an appeal filed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court whichset aside the appellant's petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him.

The appellant, a Managing Director of a company, was facing criminal trial for offences related to dis allowed mining under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and Indian Penal Code.

One of the arguments elavated by the appellant was that the Special Court under the MMDR Act had no power to take cognizance of the offences without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209. Therefore, it was considered that the order taking cognizance was fitful and hence the proceedings were void.

The  Hon’ble Apex Court considered the question whether theobliquity in taking cognizance will affect the trial. For deciding that issue, the Court referred to Sections 460, 461 and 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 460 enumerates irregularities which do not vitiate the proceedings.

the Hon’ble Court noted that, “Clause (e) of Section 460 relates to the taking of cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 190 CrPC. Clause (a) of section 190(1) refers to the receipt of a complaint of facts constituting an offence and clause (b) refers to a police report of the acts. Consequently, where a Magistrate who is not empowered by law takes cognizance of an offence either under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 190 90(1) erroneously though in good faith, the proceedings will not be set aside merely on the ground that the Magistrate was not so empowered. In other words, for vitiating the proceedings, something more than a mere lack of authority has to be established".

The judgment authored by Justice Chandrachud noted that, “Section 465 would also be applicable to challenges to interlocutory orders such as a cognizance order or summons order on the ground of irregularity of procedure. This interpretation is supported by sub-section (2) to Section 465 which states that while determining if the irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to whether the objection could or should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding".

In this backdrop, the judgment concluded : "The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC".

Case Title : Pradeep S Wodeyar v State of Karnataka

Appearances : Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave and Pravin H Parekh, for the appellant; Advocate Nikhil Goel for the State of Karnataka

 Citation : LL 2021 SC 691