LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal complaint can be initiated based on observations made in a judgment that is itself under appeal.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun vs. Shri Suresh R. Andhare & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: May 03, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: May 03, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 399
Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a criminal complaint be filed based on observations made in a court order when that order itself is under appeal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings when the foundation of the complaint is a sub-judice matter. This case revolves around a complaint filed against a police officer based on remarks made in a Sessions Court judgment, which was subsequently appealed. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has clarified the position of law regarding initiation of criminal proceedings in such cases.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authored the judgment.
Case Background
The appellant, Shri Hanumant Dinkar Arjun, filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No. 1, Shri Suresh R. Andhare, a Sub-Inspector of Police. This complaint was based on certain adverse observations made by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, in his order dated 26.02.2003. The Sessions Court had convicted four accused persons for offenses under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant contended that these observations against the respondent No. 1 warranted criminal action. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur, under Sections 166, 167, 201 to 204 of the IPC, read with Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
The core issue arose from the fact that the order of the Sessions Court, which formed the basis of the complaint, was under appeal before the High Court. The appellant sought to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officer based on the Sessions Court’s observations, while the accused persons in the original case had appealed their conviction.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26.02.2003 | 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, convicts four accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and makes adverse observations against respondent No. 1. |
| – | Accused persons file criminal appeal in the High Court against the order dated 26.02.2003. |
| – | Appellant files a complaint against respondent No. 1 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur, based on the observations in the Sessions Court order. |
| 15.07.2008 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismisses the criminal revision application filed by the appellant. |
| 03.05.2019 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, granting liberty to the appellant to move afresh after the outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons. |
Course of Proceedings
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur, declined to entertain the complaint filed by the appellant. The appellant then filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was also dismissed on 15.07.2008. The High Court upheld the order of the lower court, leading the appellant to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The complaint was filed under Sections 166, 167, 201 to 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
- Sections 166, 167, 201 to 204 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with offenses related to a public servant disobeying the law, framing an incorrect document, and causing disappearance of evidence of an offense.
- Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951: This section deals with penalties for violations of the Bombay Police Act.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the adverse observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge against respondent No. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, in the order dated 26.02.2003, constituted sufficient grounds to initiate criminal action against him. The appellant contended that a prima facie case was made out based on these observations, warranting an investigation and trial.
The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the respondent argued against the maintainability of the complaint, given that the order on which it was based was under appeal.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Criminal action should be initiated against Respondent No. 1. |
|
| Respondent’s Submission (Inferred): Complaint is not maintainable. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues but the core issue was whether a criminal complaint can be initiated based on observations made in a judgment that is itself under appeal.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether a criminal complaint can be initiated based on observations made in a judgment that is itself under appeal? | The Court held that since the order which formed the basis of the complaint was sub-judice, the appellant was required to await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons. The Court did not entertain the appeal and granted liberty to the appellant to move afresh after the outcome of the criminal appeal. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was primarily based on the principle that a matter under appeal is sub-judice, and any action based on it should await the final outcome of the appeal.
| Authority | How it was considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| None | Not Applicable |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that since the order of the Sessions Court, which was the basis of the complaint, was under appeal before the High Court, it was sub-judice. The Court stated that the appellant should await the outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons before pursuing the complaint against respondent No. 1.
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that criminal action should be initiated based on the Sessions Court’s observations. | The Court did not accept the submission and held that the complaint should await the outcome of the criminal appeal. |
The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, which was the subject matter of the complaint. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to move afresh for raising his grievance depending on the outcome of the criminal appeal against the order dated 26.02.2003.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the principle that a matter under appeal is sub-judice. The Court emphasized that any action based on a judgment that is under appeal should await the final outcome of that appeal. This ensures that the legal process is followed correctly and prevents any premature or potentially erroneous actions. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and avoid conflicting outcomes.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Sub-Judice Principle | 80% |
| Procedural Correctness | 20% |
| Fact | Law |
|---|---|
| 20% | 80% |
The Court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. The decision was straightforward, based on the principle that a sub-judice matter should not be the basis of further legal action.
The decision was reached by applying the principle that when an order is under appeal, it is sub-judice, and any action based on it should be deferred until the appeal is decided.
The Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, which is the subject matter of the complaint. It simply deferred the matter until the criminal appeal against the Sessions Court’s order was decided.
The Court stated:
“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.”
“We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which is subject matter of the complaint.”
“With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of finally.”
There were no majority or minority opinions as the judgment was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal complaint based on observations in a court order should not be entertained if that order is under appeal.
- The principle of sub-judice requires that any action based on a matter under appeal should await the final outcome of the appeal.
- This judgment ensures that legal proceedings are not initiated prematurely and avoids conflicting outcomes.
Directions
The Supreme Court granted liberty to the appellant to move afresh for raising his grievance depending upon the outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons against the order dated 26.02.2003.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a criminal complaint based on a judgment that is under appeal is not maintainable until the appeal is decided. This reiterates the principle of sub-judice and clarifies that legal actions should not be based on orders that are subject to further judicial review. The Supreme Court has not changed any previous position of law but has reinforced the existing principle of sub-judice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, holding that the criminal complaint filed by the appellant was premature as it was based on an order that was sub-judice. The Court emphasized that the appellant must await the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons before pursuing the complaint. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case but allowed the appellant to move afresh after the appeal was decided.