New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed inconsistent decisions from different benches shook public trust and outlined their consistency to be hallmark of a responsible judiciary.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a matrimonial matter where two different single benches of Karnataka High Court had passed contradictory verdicts.
“The case at hand portrays a disturbing picture. While one judge refused to quash proceeding against the in-laws, inter alia, observing the wound certificate demonstrates the appellant was assaulted and suffered simple injuries, another judge by the impugned order quashed the proceeding against respondent husband holding the medical certificate was not consistent with the allegations in the complaint, i.e., the wound certificate does not show the injuries were caused by a blunt weapon.” Justice Bagchi, who authored the verdict, censured the order passed by the second judge, who quashed the proceedings against the husband.
“Having perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view the judge erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR/chargesheet.” The top court opined the judge compared the nature of assault described in the FIR in relation to the wound certificate and held the allegations to be untrue.
In the process, the bench said, the judge performed a mini-trial to quash the proceeding — an exercise impermissible in law.
The top court said though the order refusing to quash the proceeding against some of the in-laws was passed earlier, it was inexplicable why it did not find a mention in the order quashing the proceedings against the husband.
“It was incumbent on the judge while quashing the proceeding against the respondent husband to refer to the earlier decision of the co-ordinate bench and distinguish the reasons therein to arrive at a different conclusion. Failure to do so infracts judicial propriety and discipline,” the bench said.
Consistency in judicial outcomes, it underscored, was the hallmark of a responsible judiciary.
“Inconsistent decisions coming out from different benches shake public trust and reduce litigation to a punter’s game. It gives rise to various insidious sharp practices like forum shopping spoiling the clear stream of justice.” The top court said the high court judge “misdirected himself” in holding that the proceeding was malicious and an abuse of the process of the court as the matter was pending in the matrimonial court.
“Offences involving cruelty on wife would invariably arise out of matrimonial disputes,” it added.
The bench said the impugned order suffered from the “vice of judicial caprice” and deserved to be set aside.
Notably, the top court said the pendency of the matrimonial case couldn’t per se lead to an inference that institution of criminal proceeding alleging assault supported by medical evidence and independent witness was a “product of malice and abuse of the court”.
The bench said it was nobody’s case that no injury was noted in the wound certificate thereby rendering the allegation of assault patently absurd or inherently improbable.
“In this backdrop, it was unwarranted for the judge to embark on a mini trial to weigh the ocular version vis-a-vis medical evidence and quash the proceeding. Whether the ocular evidence is fully incompatible with medical evidence is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to terminate prosecution at the initial stage,” it added.
The top court’s order came on a plea of the wife against the high court order quashing the criminal case against her estranged husband.
She alleged her estranged husband had an affair with another woman and the latter verbally abused her.
Her estranged husband and in-laws, she alleged further, harassed her physically and mentally aside from demanding a Rs 2-lakh dowry.
Owing to the ill-treatment meted out to her and the dowry demand, she moved in with her parents.
The case was lodged against the husband and in-laws over charges of assault and dowry harassment.
The husband and others moved the high court seeking quashing of the FIR.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
