Summary
The Court restored prosecution against a charge-sheeted accused after the High Court had quashed it because other alleged participants were not prosecuted. Omission of possible accomplices did not by itself invalidate proceedings supported by a prima facie case after investigation. If evidence during trial warranted proceeding against additional persons, Section 319 provided the relevant power. The restored case was to be tried on its own merits; the Court did not determine the accused’s guilt or direct that omitted persons automatically be summoned.
Issues
- Whether non-prosecution of other alleged participants justified quashing proceedings against a charge-sheeted accused.
Provisions considered
- Sections 482 and 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Omission of other possible offenders was not itself a basis to quash; additional accused could be proceeded against through the statutory trial-stage power when warranted. (¶ 4-4.2)
Held
- A prima facie prosecution following investigation does not become unsustainable merely because other persons who might also have committed offences were not arrayed or charge-sheeted. The High Court’s reliance on that omission alone was erroneous. (¶ 4-4.1)
- If trial evidence showed involvement of persons not charge-sheeted, the court could exercise Section 319 powers in accordance with law. This possibility did not require termination of the existing prosecution or constitute a direction automatically to add those persons. (¶ 4.1)
- The High Court had not otherwise decided the allegations against the respondent on their merits. Its quashing order was set aside and the charge-sheeted respondent was directed to face trial, with the case to be considered independently under law. (¶ 4.1-5)
Result
Complainant bank’s appeal allowed; High Court’s quashing order set aside and prosecution against original accused No. 1 restored for trial in accordance with law and on its merits.