NDLI: Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – ss.161. 397(2)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161. 397(2) – Prosecution csae was that FIR was registered on 26 December 2016 for offences punishable under ss.143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 302, 307, 114 and 149 of the IPC – According to the FIR, on 25 December 2016, the accused came to the village of the appellant armed with knives and rods, and abused and assaulted some of the villagers – A few of the accused allegedly assaulted and stabbed the appellant, his elder brother and another villager with knives – The grievously injured persons were first taken to the Government Hospital at Maddur – The injured were referred to Mandya District Hospital from where they were further transferred to K R Hospital, Mysore – Appellant claimed that the FIR was registered on the information furnished by him, making him the informant – During trial, PW 2 (doctor of Maddur Government Hospital), stated that the appellant and another injured witness were brought by the police to Maddur Government Hospital and that he had referred both the patients to Mandya District Hospital for further treatment – PW 4, working at K R Hospital, Mysore stated that the statement of the appellant was recorded in his presence by the PSI Maddur on 26 December 2016 – During the course of his examination-in-chief, the Public Prosecutor wanted to mark the complaint together with the signature of the appellant as an exhibit – An objection was raised by the defense counsel on the ground that in view of the statement of PW 2, during the course of his examination, the statement of the appellant is referable to s.161 of the CrPC and cannot be marked as an exhibit – Trial court refused to mark the complaint on the basis of the statement by PW 2, and on the ground that PW 7 did not depose in his evidence that he gave the complaint to the police – The State did not pursue its remedies against the order of the trial court – Appellant instituted a criminal revision under ss.397(1) and 401 of the CrPC before High Court – High Court upheld the order of the trial court, holding that the appellant as the de-facto complainant had no locus standi to file the revision petition and the powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to an interlocutory order and therefore dismissed the revision petition in view of the bar contained in s.397(2) of CrPC – Hence instant appeal – Held: On the basis of the deposition of PW 4, it prima facie appears that the statement of the appellant was recorded on 26 December 2016 at K R Hospital, Mysore in the presence of PW 4 – On the basis of the statement of PW7, intimation about the offence was received at PS Maddur following which the FIR was registered on 26 December 2016 – Thus, the basis of the order of the trial court, which has been upheld by the High Court, namely, that the statement of the appellant is a statement under s.161 CrPC is erroneous – The statement of the appellant, in fact, was the basis on which the FIR was registered – Hence, it was legitimately open to the prosecution to have the statement proved and marked as an exhibit during the course of the trial – There would be a serious miscarriage of justice in the course of the criminal trial if the statement were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the basis of the registration of the FIR – The order of the trial judge cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the substantive course of the prosecution. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.397(2) – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court in criminal matter – Scope of – The revisional jurisdiction u/s.397 of CrPC can be exercised against the final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory order where the interest of the public justice requires to subvert manifest illegality and to prevent gross miscarriage of justice – In the present case, the order of the trial court declining to mark the statement of the informant as an exhibit is an intermediate order affecting important rights of the parties and cannot be said to be purely of an interlocutory nature – The revisional jurisdiction u/s 397 r/w 401 of CrPC is a discreationary in nature and can be exercised suo motu and there can be no bar on the third party invoking such jurisdiction inviting the attention of the High Court that an occasion to exercise the power has arisen – Since the order of the trial court is not interlocutory in nature and that the bar u/s.397(2) of the CrPC in inapplicable, a criminal revision filed by an appellant-informant against the said order of the trial court was maintainable.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 794
Petitioner	Honnaiah T.h.
Respondent	State Of Karnataka And Others
SCR	[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1108
Judgement Date	2022-08-04
Case Number	1147

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

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others

Johar and Others Vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others

A.k. Subbaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Bashir and Others Vs. State of Haryana

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.

Ajwar Vs. Niyaj Ahmad & Anr.

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others

Johar and Others Vs. Mangal Prasad & Anr.

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and Others

A.k. Subbaiah & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Bashir and Others Vs. State of Haryana

Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.

Ajwar Vs. Niyaj Ahmad & Anr.

Honnaiah T.h. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others