NDLI: Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: S. 482
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Reference Answered
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:S. 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Judgment of Supreme Court dated 29.1.2008 1 dismissing the appeal against judgment of High Court of Karnataka declining to quash the proceedings - In the concurring judgment one of the Judges comprising the Bench observing that he was not in agreement with the view of the other Judge that power u/s 482 should be used only in "rarest of rare cases" as the phrase is used only with reference to death penalty and its use referring to scope of power u/s 482 was inappropriate - The Judge, in para 17 to 39 of his concurring judgment, further making recommendations and giving directions relating to anticipatory bail in U.P. and enforcement of directions relating to arrest as laid down in Joginder Kumar's case - Held : When the words 'rarest of rare cases' are used after the words 'sparingly and with circumspection' while describing the scope of section 482, those words merely emphasize and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by the words 'sparingly and with circumspection'- They mean that the power under Section 482 to quash proceedings should not be used mechanically or routinely, but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice- The expression "'rarest of rare cases" is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under Section 302 IPC, but toemphasize that the power under Section 482 Cr. PC. to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection - Judgment - Interpretation ofJUDGMENTJudgment of superior Courts - Interpretation of - Judgments are not to be construed as statutes- Nor words or phrases in judgments to be interpreted like provisions of a statute-Words used in a judgment should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally- Ratio decidendi of a judgment is not to be discerned from a stray word or phrase read in isolation - Ratio decidendi.APPEALAppellate Court - Jurisdiction of - Held: The subject matter of an appeal, whether civil or criminal, is the correctness of the decision of the court below - There is no question of appellate court traveling beyond and making observations alien to the case - Any opinion, observation, comment or recommendation de hors the subject of the appeal, may lead to confusion in the minds of litigants, members of public and authorities as they will not know how to regulate their affairs, or whether to act upon it - In the instant case, the appeal did not relate to grant of anticipatory bail nor did it relate to rights of arrested persons - This Court has repeatedly cautioned that while rendering judgments, courts should only deal with the subject matter of the case and issues involved therein - Courts should desist from issuing directions affecting executive or legislative policy, or general directions unconnected with the subject matter of the case - A court may express its views on a particular issue in appropriate cases only where it is relevant to the subject matter of the case -Another aspect that requires to be kept in view is the fact that even when it becomes necessary for a court for hatsoever reason, to decide or comment upon an issue not raised by the parties, it may do so only after notifying the parties concerned so that they can put forth their views on such issue - In so far as the observations, recommendations, and directions in paras 17 to 39 of the concurring judgment, suffice it to say that they do not relate to the subject matter of the criminal appeal and being the expression of an expectation or hope by only one of the Judges constituting the Bench and not agreed to by the other, is not a decision, order or direction of the Court- That being so, the directions issued to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, State Governments and Union Territories, and recommendations to the Government of UP in the "aside" contained in Paras 17 to 39 of the concurring judgment are not directions to be complied with - Practice and Procedure- Judicial restraint-Principles of natural justice. Som Mittal Vs Government of Karnataka (2008) 2 SCR 323 - clarified.WORDS AND PHRASES:Expressions "sparingly and with circumspection" and "in rarest of rare cases" used in the judgment of Supreme Court with reference to exercise of power u/s 482 Cr. PC. - Connotation of
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan
Neutral Citation	2008 INSC 226
Petitioner	Som Mittal
Respondent	Government Of Karnataka
SCR	[2008] 3 S.C.R. 130
Judgement Date	2008-02-21
Case Number	206

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Som Mittal Vs. Govt. of Karnataka

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another

Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Vs. The State (govt. of Nct) Delhi

M.a.a. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka & Another

S. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Chellammal

Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Anr Vs. B. Srinivas

Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. The State of Punjab

Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka

Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Som Mittal Vs. Govt. of Karnataka

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another

Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Vs. The State (govt. of Nct) Delhi

M.a.a. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka & Another

S. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Chellammal

Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha and Anr Vs. B. Srinivas

Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. The State of Punjab

Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka