| Case Name | Krishna Kumar Variar V Share Shoppe |
| Equivalent Citation | 2010 (5) SCR 1153 |
| Date of Judgment | May 3rd, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 2010 |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal |
| Appellant | Krishna Kumar Varier |
| Respondent | Share Shoppe |
| Bench | 2-Judge Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice A.K. Patnaik |
| Referred | Referred Sec 482 of Cr.P.CReferred Sec 415, 420 of IPC[1] |
KRISHNA KUMAR VARIAR Vs SHARE SHOPPE
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- In the present case, the Appellant was being declared as accused by the Delhi Trial Court for the offences committed under Sections 415/420 of IPC for which he was being issued summons by the Delhi Court.
- The present case was being initially an appeal against the Delhi Court’s Summons order to the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, on the basis that the Trial Court lacks the Jurisdiction to entertain the case and only Bombay Court has the power to try and adjudicate on this case.
- The Bombay High Court quashed his petition, further on the same issue the aggrieved Appellant moved to the Supreme Court of India on appeal.
- Section 482 of Cr.P.C: Preserving the High Court’s inherent powers, no provision in CrPC shall restrict the High Court’s power of making necessary orders under the code or to stop the misuse of any court process or to meet the justice ultimately.
ISSUE RAISED:
- When can the High Court entertain a petition or appeal filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?
- What are the factors that assist in determining whether a court has jurisdiction to conduct trial and adjudicate the case?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
- The Appellant pleaded that only the Bombay Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon this petition.
- The Appellant also argued that the High Court has committed a mistake in its decision as it has the power to entertain his petition or appeal under Sec 482 of the CrPC to do complete justice and prevent the abuse of the court process.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
- The Respondent argued that the Delhi Court has jurisdiction to issue Summons based on the facts of the case and hence the High Court dismissed the appeal filed under Sec 482 of CrPC.
- The Respondent contended that the High Court was correct in dismissing the appeal filed under Sec 482 of CrPC as it uses this inherent powers only to prevent abuse of court process and to meet as well as achieve the goals of doing complete justice, as there is no such abuse the High Court dismissed the appeal.
JUDGEMENT:
The Apex Court reflected its view that in cases where the objection is being raised by the accused or any other person saying that the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the case matter, such person who has raised the objection must initially make this pleading through an application before the Trial Court and also by stating relevant facts.
Therefore, Without directly approaching the Higher Court in form of appeal against the Summons, the dissatisfied person should in the primary stage approach the Trial court disclosing his contention in form of filing suitable application. The Trial Court then before moving ahead with the further proceedings in case, should firstly hear the both parties’ contentions and record the evidence, in case if it is needed to decide upon the question related to jurisdiction. Also, whether the court has appropriate jurisdiction to decide upon case depends on the facts of the case.
The Apex Court directed the Appellant and the Trial Court to follow the procedure as stated above and move ahead with the case.[2]
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 482 of CrPC: It was added by CrPC Amendment Act,1923 to deliver complete justice in legal disputes were illegality can be observed. This jurisdiction is discretionary and inherent powers of HC over subordinate courts to quash FIR, investigation of Criminal proceedings. These powers have to be utilised to meet the goals of justice, to stop the misusing of court process by passing necessary orders as per CrPC.
However, the powers under this section are limited in some circumstances like when there is need to find facts in a case which is already being pending before subordinate courts or in case of interlocutory stage of criminal proceedings, the HC would interfere only when there is gross miscarriage of justice.
It is to be applied by High Court when the aggrieved party is left with no other statute specific remedy or any alternative remedy, the same goes in the present case. But in Krishna Kumar Variar V Share Shoppe, the party has the remedy to approach the Trial Court first so the High Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 482 of CrPC.[3]
CONCLUSION:
The case is being set as a precedent and cited in many judgments. One of the recent cases is Simran Nair V Ascharj Lal Gulati and Ors.[4], where the facts are similar to the above case, the Judge reasoned that when the eligible and efficient judge has gone through the complaint and evidence attached by the parties and summons the party for adequate reasons, he should not initially look for simple solution by filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC. This inherent powers of HC should not be misused according to whims and fancies of the party, it has to be utilised only when no other remedy is left as the party can file his contentions in lower court by application, the case is being dismissed. Also, it is the lower courts duty to first look after any objections by parties, if they approach and also parties duty to first approach the lower court first.
The judgment delivered in this case is of great significance as it reduces the burden of cases in Higher Courts by laying down the principle that the basic questions related to law regarding collection of evidence and hearing facts should be initially be done by Trial Courts, also the aggrieved party should first approach Trial Court for any objections regarding jurisdiction, facts, evidence recorded, hearing both parties. This principle makes clear that trifle legal issues like above have to be solved by the subordinate courts, so that the Higher Courts could look after more important legal issues like injustice meted out by needy people and so on whose judgments would create an impact on development of people and nations.
[1] (No date) Krishna Kumar Variar – main.sci.gov.in. Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36716.pdf (Accessed: 10 May 2023).
[2] 2010 (5) SCR 1153
[3] Deshpande, P. (2018) Overview of section 482 cr.P.C vis-À-vis the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India – Trials & Appeals & Compensation – India, Overview Of Section 482 Cr.P.C Vis-À-Vis The Landmark Judgments Of The Supreme Court Of India – Trials & Appeals & Compensation – India. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/697362/overview-of-section-482-crpc-vis-%C3%A0-vis-the-landmark-judgments-of-the-supreme-court-of-india (Accessed: 10 May 2023).
[4] 2022(2)RCR(Criminal)691
written by Ayyapa Reddy Gari Bhavana, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vizag
