Case Note & Summary
The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 166, 167, 201 to 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 against respondent No.1, a Sub-Inspector of Police, based on adverse observations made by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in his order dated 26.02.2003 in Session Case No. 99/2000. The trial court and the High Court declined to entertain the complaint. The Supreme Court noted that the order dated 26.02.2003, which formed the foundation of the complaint, was sub judice in a pending criminal appeal filed by the accused persons. The Court held that the appellant must await the final outcome of that appeal before pursuing the complaint. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move afresh depending on the outcome of the pending appeal. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the complaint.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sub Judice - Premature Complaint - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 166, 167, 201-204; Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 25 - Complaint filed based on adverse observations in a trial court order that is under appeal - Held that the complaint is premature and the appellant must await the outcome of the pending appeal before pursuing the complaint (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint based on an order that is sub judice in a pending appeal can be entertained.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature, granting liberty to the appellant to move afresh depending on the outcome of the pending criminal appeal against the order dated 26.02.2003. No opinion expressed on merits.
Law Points
- Sub judice
- Premature complaint
- Await outcome of pending appeal
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2009
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun
Shri Suresh R. Andhare & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against dismissal of revision application challenging refusal to entertain complaint against police officer.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to initiate criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 based on adverse observations in a trial court order.
Filing Reason
Adverse observations in trial court order dated 26.02.2003 against respondent No.1, a Sub-Inspector of Police.
Previous Decisions
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur declined to entertain complaint; High Court of Bombay dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 309 of 2008 on 15.07.2008.
Issues
Whether a complaint based on an order that is sub judice in a pending appeal can be entertained.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that adverse observations in the trial court order made out a prima facie case against respondent No.1.
Respondent contended that the order was under appeal and thus sub judice.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint based on an order that is sub judice in a pending appeal cannot be entertained until the final outcome of that appeal is known.
Judgment Excerpts
If that be so, then, in our opinion, the order dated 26.02.2003, which is the basis of the complaint in question, is sub judice in the criminal appeal.
In other words, when the order, which is the foundation for filing the complaint in question itself is sub judice, the appellant is required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons.
Procedural History
Appellant filed complaint before JMFC Indapur, which was declined. Appellant filed Criminal Revision Application No. 309 of 2008 before Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 15.07.2008. Appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2009 by special leave before Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 166, 167, 201, 202, 203, 204
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 25
