M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapur and Anr.

Case Name :	M.L. Sethi Vs. R.P. Kapur and Anr.
Equivalent Citation :	(1967)1 SCR 520; AIR 1967 SC 528
Date of Judgement :	23 September 1966
Court :	Supreme Court of India
Case No. :	Criminal Appeal no. 110 of 1965
Case type :	Criminal Appeal
Petitioner :	M.L.Sethi
Respondent :	R.P.Kapur
Bench :	V. Ramaswami, V. Bhargava, Raghubar Dayal
Referred :	s.195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C , s.211 of I.P.C.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Appeal was filed by the appellant (M.L.Sethi) granted by High Court under a certificate against the order passed by the Magistrate of the court.

Before appeal, on December 10, 1958, Appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent (R.P.kapur) and his mother-in-law alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under s. 420, 109, 114 and 120-B of I.P.C. as they have by conspiring together have misrepresented facts as well as cheated him and his wife with 20,000 Rs. because the title of the land that they wanted to sale-deed under the favor of his wife was already extinguished as was already acquired by the government under land Acquisition act.

But on April 11, 1959, the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant that no kind of misrepresentation had been done and the other party was fully aware of the land acquisition proceedings but due to his loss of Rs. 13,000/- cause of fixation of low rate of compensation. He threatened with consequences of criminal proceedings and loss of the respect in the society against him and his mother-in-law by demanding the same amount.

Later on, charges put by appellant against respondent got contradicted by his own letters and one more allegation as put by respondent against him that he is guilty of an offence under 204 I.P.C. for secreting the documents that were necessary to be enumerated in the complaint and to prevent them to get presented in the court. He presented two applications to the Magistrate at Chandigarh alleging that the facts were so intermixed of both complaints that no trial can be possible and for requesting Magistrate to not proceed it along with discharging of him(appellant) as charges put on him were groundless.

It was alleged in another application to not proceed cognizance or trial of the complaint under s.211 I.P.C. Both of these applications got rejected by the Magistrate in his two orders passed on August 6, 1963 and October 5, 1963 respectively.

Sections of I.P.C. used:

S.420- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security shall be punished.

S.109- Punishment of abetment

S. 114- Punishment for abettor even if absent at the time of commission of offence

S.120-B – Party to a criminal conspiracy is also punishable.

S.204- Destruction of document or electric record to prevent it from being produced as evidence is punishable offence

S.211- Falsely charging any person with having committed an offence is punishable act

S.385- In order to commit extortion, putting any person in fear is punishable offence.

Sections of Cr.P.C. used:

S. 195- Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, offence related to documents given in evidence or against public justice

S.253- Conviction on plea of guilty in absence of accused

ISSUES RAISED:

1. What is the extent of powers of the judiciary as well as police in criminal proceedings and trail?

2. What is the importance of presumption of innocene?

3. The need for proper investigation and fair trial.

4. Need to protect the rights of both accused and victim (article 22).

5. If Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of an offence under s. 190 of Cr.P.C.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

Appeal was filed under certificate granted by High Court at Allahabad by appellant (M.L.Sethi ) as Magistrate dismissed two applications of him presented for dismissing complaint against him committing an offence under sections 211, 204 and 385 of I.P.C.

He contended that the cognizance of the offence under section 211 of I.P.C. could not be taken in view of the provisions of section 195(1) of Cr.P.C.

He also submitted a prayer for an order to quash the proceedings pending in the court of Magistrate. Mr. Frank Anthony on behalf of appellant contended to held s. 195(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. as applicable even in cases when there may be no pending proceedings or already concluded in any court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

State contended that there were no pending proceedings in any court when the complaint against the appellant was filed for offences under s.211, 204, 385 of I.P.C. and s.195 of Cr.P.C.. Also, S. 195(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. was inapplicable.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

Ratio Decidendi (Mazority view of judges) is that the power to punish for contempt of court must be exercised with great caution, care and circumspection. Courts have inherent powers to punish for contempt but it should be exercised only in cases of substantial and grave interference with administration of justice and reasonability.

Courts must ensure that the contempt proceedings don’t turn into a weapon for stifling criticism or suppressing dissent and don’t result in an unnecessary curtailment of freedom of speech and expression i.e., article 19.

JUDGEMENT:

In this particular case, the Judgment was declared the justice V. Bhargava and it was decided that there can be two trials in the court in one of which the informant one would be the accused and in the other one, the person charged in FIR would be the accused and there would be no bar to informant filing a complaint in Court of Magistrate on mainly basis of his FIR.

 the Supreme Court held that the words used by the contemnor did not amount to contempt of court as they were merely a criticism of the judgment and did not interfere with the administration of justice. Therefore, the contemnor could not be punished for contempt of court.

 The complaint that was filed by the respondent was competent and the Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh only exercised his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence and it was rightly vested in him. The decision was held that the cognizance of the offence under s.211 of I.P.C. has been rightly taken and the trial for the offence is not vitiated. Hence, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

CONCLUSION:

Overall, this case law highlighted the need for a fair and just. criminal justice system that also safeguards the rights of both the accused and the victim of crime particularly in cases where there is risk of bias against them. It emphasized the importance of the proper investigation, fair trial, and upholding the presumptions of innocence to ensure that justice is served. It also based its emphasis on the fact that the police needs to do conduct a thorough investigation and collect all relevant evidence to ensure that the innocent are acquitted and the guilty ones are punished.

written by Chanchal intern under legal vidhiya