LAKHWANT SINGH v. JASBIR SINGH & Ors.

HELD: The investigation was not complete and at that stage it was .impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Sec- tion 482 Cr.P.C, it is not permissible for the Cou{t to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evalu- ate material and documents on records but it cannot ap- c preciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreci- ate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The Court should not act on annexures to the petition under sec- tion 482 Cr.PC., which cannot be termed as evidence with- D out being tested and proved. The non-reasoned order of the High Court does not reveal that the parameters relat- ing to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were kept in view. Thus, the order of the High Court is directed to be set aside. [Paras 10 and 12] [553-D-F; 554-A-B] E R.P. Kapur v State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and Ors., etc. AIR 1993 SC 892; '" Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1964 SC 1; Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. AIR 1990 F SC 494; State of Bihar and another v. P P Sharma, I.A. S. and another 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; Rupan Deof Bajaj (Mrs.) and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another 1995 (6) sec 194; State of Kera/a and Ors. v. 0. C. Kuttan and Ors. 1999 (2) sec 651; State of UP v. o. P Sharma 1996 (7) sec 705; G Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v Mahesh Kumar Bhada 1997 (2) SCC 397; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. 1999 (8) SCC 728; Rajesh Bajaj v State NCT of Delhi and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1216; State of Karnataka v M. Devendrappa and another 2002 (3) SCC 89;Jehan Singh v Delhi Admn. H ( ... ).. ---,' ---... ).-- .( .. 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.