(S.

478
OCEDURE
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PR
Official
782 sh all be pu bli sh ed in the
d t his se cti on
All ru les ma de un er
(2)
gis tra tes in certain
. ll0 t d to Ex ec uti ve Ma pe rm its , the Sta te
n so
Ga ze tte .
Po we r to alt er fun ctw ns ~ ;:: .:e by a res olu tio no tif ica tio n, dir ect
478. O
~t h th e Hi gh Co ur t, by ec uti ve Ma gis tra te
Le gis lat ive As sem blr Ex
ca se s.- If the d 14 7 to an
ns ult ati on
Go ve rnm en t ma y, aft er co 1 , 1 o9 , J110dic14 5 an
s OS ial M ag ist rat e of th e fir st cla ss.
tha t ref ere tnc es in Se cti on e
ha ll be d as ref ere nc es to aMau ist ra te is pe rso na lly int er es ted .-N o Ju dgal
co ns ru e. . ur t to wh ich an ap pe
s : ~; !rm iss ion of th e Co
479. Cases in wh ich Ju ~gt ·t fie p tri al an y ca se to, or in wh ich he is a Pa rty
pt wi he ar an ap pe al froU:
or Ma gis tra te sha ll, ex ce i Ju'::°ge or M ag ist rat e sh all
~o ur t, try or c~ mm
lie s fro m his ste d, an no d b him sel f.
or pe rso na lly int ere sse d or ma e y pa rty· to,· or
an y jud gm en t or or de r pa M am str ate sh all no t beh de•em ed to beda th
. AJ d co nc ern e ere m m a
P- la na tio n. -d . u ge or by e·
rea so n on ly th at e 1sth e pla ce in wh ich an
_._,,, . :a ::1 y th at he ha s vie we d
ste in ~: ;o
pe rs? na lly in! ere 0 in wh ich an ! o~ er
en co mm itt ed or an y ot he r pla ce
:; :! :e~= P~ ;:: ci :;, tv e be d ma de an inq uir y
ter ial to the ca se is all eg ed to ha ve oc cu rre d an
tra ns ac tio n ma
se.
in co nn ec tio n wi th the ca
COMMENT
sh~ul? ~e
e nem o deb et ess e jud ex in causa propria sua (~o pers_on
The Principl
ap pli es to all Tr i?u na ls an d b~d1es wh ich are given
a Judge in his ow n cause) the rig hts of . pa rti es .. Anoth~r
_e~ually
mi ne jud ici all y
jurisdiction to deter all Judicial or_
nc ipl e of ad mi nis tra tio n of justice IS th at m pp ~
important pri
s jus tic e mu st no t on ly be do ~e bu t mu st also _a
quasi-judicial proceeding Th e for m~r ru le ap pli es wh en the
attribute IS
liti ga tin g pu bli c.
to be do ne to the n case. 1 :
. . .
to ren de r the cas e his ow
such as or no t has
wh eth er a M ag ist rat e is pe rso na lly int ere ste d
The quest ion
on the fac ts in ea ch cas e. Personal int ere st within the
essentially to be decided d to pri vate, interest, it ma y includ
e official
tio n is no t lim ite
meaning of this sec
nti ng san cti on for pr os ec uti on in an oth er capacity, a
interest also. Merely by gra be co me pe rso na lly int ere ste d in the
case
sai d to ha ve
Magistrate cannot be
section.2
within the meaning of this tra te in ce rta in Co u.r ls.
-N o
no t to sit as Ma gis
480. Pr ac tis ing ple ad er urt of an y M ag ist rat e sh all sit as a Magistrate in
the Co ·
ple ad er wh o pra cti ses in thi n the loc al jur isd ict ion of th
at Co ur t.
or in an y Co urt wi ert y.- A
tha t Co urt t to pu ro ha se or bi d for pr op
co nc ern ed in sa le ~o of anY
. 481. Pu bli c s~ rva nt to pe rfo rm in co nn ec tio n wi th th e sa le I
y du ty
pu bli c se rv an t ha vin g an no t pu rch as e or bid fo r th
e pr op ert y.
un de r thi s Co de sh all Co de shall
pro pe rty gh Co ur t.- No th in g in thi s
ere nt po we rs of Hi ma ke such
482. Sav~ng_ of inh inh ere nt po we rs of th e Hi gh Co ur t toCo de , or to
aff ec t the
be de em ed to bm it or or de r un de r thi s
ry to giv e eff ec t to an y ds of
ord ers as ma y be ne ce ssa ss of an y Co ur t or oth erw ise to se cu re the en
the pro ce
!1re~ent ab us e of
Jus tic e.
COMMENT.
ur t may be
thi s sec tion the inh ere nt jurisdicti~n of the Hi gh Cof any Court
_Und~r f
her to pr ev en t the ab us e o process o should be
exercised m a proper case. eit. Co ur t
the en ds of Justice. Inh erent po we rs of the Hi gh
or to secure
.
1. Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem
Chand, A.I.R. 1967 SC 425
2. Rameshwar Bhartia v. State
of Assam, A.I.R. 952 i S.C. 405
_
 MISCELLANEOUS 783
s. ,s2J
_
exercised onl y in ~xc ept ion al cas es.1
ld b~
~ the fol low ing cas es the. inh ere nt jurisdiction of the Hig h Co urt cou
exercised to qua sh the pro cee dm gs2 :
t the institution or continuance Of . th.e
(i) wh ere th~ re is a leg al bar aga ins
pro cee din gs;
do not
(ii) wh er~ the alle gat ion s in ged the first inf orm atio n or com laint
; and p
con stit ute the offence alle
evi den ce add uce d in sup por t of the
(iii) wh ere eit her the re is no legal
arly or manifestly failed to pro ve
cha rge or the evi den ce add uce d cle
the cha rge .
of
The Su pre me Co urt3 in Chilakama
rthi Venkateswarlu & another ·v. State
on of
d tha t the ple nar y inh ere nt jurisdicti
Andhra Pradesh & another, has rei ter ate effe ct to
h Co urt un der Sec tion 482 of Cr. P.C. ma y be exercised to giv e
the Hig and to
abu se of the process of the Co urt
an order. und er the Co de to pre ven t inh ere nt pow er of the Co urt is wid e
end s of jus tice . Th oug h
otherwise sec ure y
ens ive , it has to be exe rcis ed spa ringly, carefully and wit h cau tion onl
and ext tion
tests specifically laid <:{own in the sec
when suc h exercise is jus tifi ed by the erw ise
the process of any Co urt or to oth
itself in ord er to pre ven t abu se of diti ons
the end s of jus tice . For inte rfe ren ce und er Section 482, thr ee con
secure •
are to be fulfilled, na me ly, -
t sho uld be grave, and n~t of a trivial
(i) The inj ust ice wh ich comes to ligh •
•
character;
ana clear and not doubtful; and
(ii) It sho uld be dis tin ctly pal pab le
ere sho uld exi st no pro vis ion of law by wh ich the par ty agg riev ed
(iii) Th
.
could hav e sou ght relief.
ing jur isd icti on und er Sec tion 482, it is not permissible for the
In exe rcis ent s
rt to act as if it we re a tria l Co urt . It can eva lua te materials and doc um
Cou ut the
e of prima facie. satisfying itseH abo
on record onl y for the lim ited pur pos g against the accuse~, but c~ ot
suf fici ent gro und for pro cee din
existence of fia ent
reci ate the evi den ce to con clu de wh eth er materials pro duc ed are suf
app 4 . •
,
for conviction of the accused. .
est
er Section 482 in cases whe~e manif
The Hig h Co urt m~ y int erv ene und in iss uin g process despite the fac t
n com mi tted by the tria l cou rt st
error has bee
ged act s did no t con stit ute an off ence. Ho we ver , it mu st be at~ · ~t
that alle n as
482, the Hig h Co urt does n~t ~c tio
While exercising pow ers und er5 Section • 6
a Cou rt of app eal or rev isio n. . _
l f{aq ue, tha t
Pha rma ceu tica l Wo rks Ltd. v. Md . Sharafu
ers _on .the _High _Co~-- I~ ~~y saves
It wa s hel d in Zan du
doe s no t con fer any new pow
~ti on 482
1973 S.C. 799;, Naresh v. State of M4J
ul.rasthra, A.LR.
l. Amarchand v Shanti Bose, .A.I.R. _376 .
1967 S.C. t; ·T. H. Hussain v. M.
P. Mondkar, A.I.R. 1958. S.C.
,
2- R. P. Kapur v. State of Pun jab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866. •' ~ , • . .
3 . ano ther , A.I. R. 200 5 S.
3. hd Sharful Haq ue and
• A.I.R. 201 9 S.C. 391
4- Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mo
•
9. . • 200l s.c;, ~ -
C

of Bihar, A.I.R.
S. S.N. Palanitkar & Ors. v. Stat e
6. 2005 Cr. L.J. 92 (S.C.).
 THE CODE OF CRI MIN AL PROCED
784 URE
[S. 4
. hi h the Co urt pos ses 81
the inherent pow er w c sed bef ore the ena ctm ent of h
f 1973 It envisages three circumstan und er wh ich the inh t e Cod
0 ces
b • . d namely (1) to give effect to an ord ere nt jurisd· . e
ma y e exberc1se f 'the proc~ss of Court; er und er the Cod . ~~tion
prevent a use o and (iii) to oth erw ise secure th: , (11) to
·ustice. It is neither possible nor des .rrabl t 1 d wn infl . ends
Jwo ld the exe
. e. o . a~ o
rcise of inh ere nt 1ur1sd1cbon. any ex1ble rule ~,hi of
u govern
State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal,1 is a
ch
case rela ting _to interference With the
order framing charge. It wa s hel d tha
t the s~ope. of inh ere nt pow er of Iii
Court under Section 482 . .
of Cr. P.C. reg ard ing inte rfer enc e wit
h the dgh
framing charge is only lim ited and can be exercis • d nl b
e o y y wa y of exce orti er
only to do real and substantial justice.
is in the nat ure of an exception and
be exercised m · three circ
The pow er un~ e~ Section _482 of the
not the rule. Thi s inh ere nt Jurisdiction
• umstances, nam 1 • (') t
t:
m
e y • 1 o giv • e e ffect to an ay
und er the Code; (ii) to pre ven t abu se order
of the pro ces s of Co urt; and (iii) to
otherwise secure the end s of justice.
It wa s hel d in State of Karnataka v.
Pastor P. Raju,2 tha t inherent power
und er Section 482 Criminal Pr9 ced ure
Co de can be exe rcis ed to quash criminal
proceedings pen din g in any Co urt.
Bu t the pow er can not be exercised
interfere wit h statutory pow er of police to
to con duc t inv est iga tion in a cognizable
offence.
It was observed in Divine Retreat Cen
tre v. State of Kerala and others,3 that
there are three circumstances und er
wh ich the inh ere nt jurisdiction under
Section 482, Cr. P.C. ma y be exercised
na me ly: -
(i) to give effect to an ord er und er the
Co de;
(ii) to pre ven t abu se of the P!oces
s of Co urt s; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the end s
of justice.
In this ver y case direction for inv
est iga tion wa s ask ed by anonymous
peti~o~ sent directly in the nam e of jud
ge. Inv est iga tion wa s ask ed against an
institution_ against wh ich no police com
pla int wa s lod ged . The Supreme Cou
held tha t m such a case the pet itio n oug rt
ht not to be ent erta ine d.4
Inherent Po~ ers under Section 482,
Cr. P.C .-I n State of Maharas~tr~ ~
Aru n Gulab Gawalt and others,5 it- wa s
hel d tha t the pow er of quashing cr~
p_roceeds un_der section 482, Cr. p .C. has th
to be exe rcis ed ver y sparingly and w1
circumspection and tha t too in rar est of
rar e cases.
In this case the follow· • c1p
• 1es hav e als
mg prm o bee n la1•d d own·•
(i) while exercising inh ere nt pow er .h
und er sec tion 482, Cr. P.C. the Big
Court cannot • t
m erv ene or 'sof t ped al the cou rse of • ti' e •
(ii) the • JUS c ' d
powers given und er Article 226 and ·tuti
sti oll all
und er und er section 482, Cr. p .C. are 227 of the Co n . . a11d
not to frustrate it·, dev ice s to advance 1usnce
1. 2004 .Cr. L.J. 3866 (S.C.).
2. 2007 Cr. L.J. 4045 (S.C.).
3. (2008) 2 Cr. L.J. 189l (S.C.).
4. (2008) 2 Cr. L.J. 1891 (S.C.).
5. (2011) 1 Cr. L.J. 89 (S.C.).
 MISCELLANEOUS 785
S. 4821 . .
ou s f:l1ence affectin .
In ca se o f p ro se cu ti o n fo r he in o h g SO Ciety at large
(iii) ti. re p o rt can n o t b
e
er el y on assumpt
ion
first u u o rm a o n e n o ch an ce o f c q~a~ edom
!-'

b • himself is
ction r th at vi•ctim
th at th er e w.o u ld h onv1tt
is ed
•
no t su p p o rt in g o
back u n d er p re ss u
r as co m pr
re o r influence
om

o a c ~ d
er because vict m
. ~
f
im ay resile
e possibility that
ba ck w o u ld n o t ab gal
victim m ay resile fend so
1
~ e ta te of its social an d le
e of
pr os ec ut e th . er ,,
re sp on si bi li ty to .
ja b 1 th e was
w in de r Si ng h v. St at e o f P un
pr oc po w ef rC un de r Se ion 482 . th
ct
In K u/ en t ab us e ~ f re can ne
t ju st it ia e to pdre v ess o ou rt The to in vo ;e :
ercised ex debi Ii t d fin to en ab le H ig h C ou rt
ex . eIt ~ ar a- met er s d circumstances of
;° ~ s ~ o r e s up on fa ct s an
be e ~ a ~ w ay s de pe nd it ha s to be exercise
d
er cise sp er en dpowSeers.. t li m i~ ho w ey er
ex I as n o t.
each case.. o w er u
n e~ ct io n 482 h .caution, circumspection an d restrain 1
care,_ tr
d w it h u_tmost m en t to maintain
an d
°
very sfa ~ g ly an ef fe ct iv e in st ru harm con
ex tr ao rd m ar y hieving.peace, on y
Court 1s VItal an d ro le o f p ar am o u n t imp.ortance in ac ut e by w ay of
y s . sp
social ordeIr. It· p la . . .
ae ty . R es ol ut io n of di
iate
ng er ua li ty m so t to· attract immed
and ever~ as ti ng co tw o w ar ri ng groups, therefore ?u gh fect to sa m e unless
n ll ef
compronuse be tw e~ o f C ou rt to en de av or giving fu ld
io n o f society o r w ou
and pr om pt at te nt law fu l co m po si ti on
~ ab ho rr ~ nt to
_

such co m pr om is e.
1 •
•
~ • • •
• • •
• ' _ •
. ~

ry eals, by w ay of
" }

promote sa va ge !
. . .. ~. ' '
•

m in al A pp
'

o f Goa,2 ·th e C ri by
M au vi n v. State a mon or de r pa ss ed
In th e m at te r o f pellan ts ag ai ns t co m
ges framed
e filed b y th e ap ing aside the char offences
special leave, w er C ou rt w hi le se tt
h er eb y th e H ig h for th e
accused-appellants enal C od e an d
the High C ou rt , w e, ag ai ns t th e
by the le ar ne d S
pecial Ju dg 42 0, 465 an d 471, In
di an P
40 9, (i i)
shab le u n d er S ec tion s 12 0- B ,
~ er ~ o n s l~ (l (d)(i) an d l~ (l )( d)
puni ~m un Penal
ch ar ge s ag ai ns t th BB rea~ w tt h ~ ti o n 120-B, In di an ents,
directed to fr am e , 1? ev
o f C or ru pt io n Act ht of sequence o~
of the P re ve nt io n y th e court_in appeal that m the hg st the
Code. It w as h el d
b
no _ ~a s~ co ul d be ~ ad e ou t ~gam the
at
d n o t be said_ th e ISsued w it h~ ut
prima Jacie, it co ul Allegedly, ~ e • ~otificatio~ w er ces~ary to go m to the
.· ne
accused-appellants an d b y _violation of ~~es. It 1s no t particularly w he n ~ e
bi ne t e ca se ,
approval o f ca · ex am in at io n· of m en ts of th only. There w as no error m
aspect of th or ou gh ges
t · th st ag e o f framing of char h Court, w he n presumably the
issue · ti
fram u. :; sc
ll
ha r; es , :S su gi es te d by th
th~ C ou rt to do so.
e •H ig
is
er ia l o n re co rd ob li ga te d
as h C ri m in al P ro ce ed in gs .- It
mat iction to qu • t or charge-sheet do
. f •nherent •1•urisd t • th e compl am
m • n
• rt•Sdictio
Exercd1seth at ou
o 1 he re allegations set th tt · h C ou rt exerc1•sm • g 1·ts Ju
w ll tt1e w ffence it is open to or e 1g the Magistrate taki
ng
e se de r pa ss ed by
n t to quash the
Odconst i~te an48y2,°c r• p•c3·
un er Section th e
ce o f th e of fe nc e•. llo w in g gu id el in es laid do w n by
cognizan e fo
th e application, thajan Lal,4 should be followed : - ..
. . v. Bh
In reJec: mftate o f Haryana •
•
A pex C ou rt ll l
(217 2) (F.B.).
-
L J 21 61
C).
(S
I. 20 17 C r. • • 1717 (8) S.C.C. 524.
~ ~ Ii v. State of Karnataka, 2010
2. 2018 CAr. 604.
3. MAA 19n92 s.c.
. •
4. A .IR
 78 6 THE CODE Of CR IM INA
L PROCEDURE
[S. 482
(1) W he re the alleg ati·o ns m ad e in FIR or th e co
ta ke n at th eir fac . . m pl ai nt , ev en if they
e va lu e an •
d ac ce pt ed m !h ei r en tir d are
.
co ns tit ff
ut e an y o ence or m ak e ou t a case ag ai ns t th e ac et y o no t prima facie
(2) W he re FI R an d ot he . cu se d pe rso n.
r ma ter ial s do . no t d1Sclos .
justifying an y investigatio e a cogruzable offence
n by police or M ag ist ra te.
(3) W he re th e allegation .
cognizable offence bu t in th e I: R / co m pl ai nt do n? t co
on ly a non-cogruzable ~t itu te a
pe rm itt ed by police offic offence,. no investigatio
er wi th ou t an or de r of n is
155(2) of Cr. P.C. a M ag ist ra te un de r Secti
on
(4) W he re th e allegati
ons in FI R/ co m pl ai nt ai:
im pr ob ab le ha vi ng no su e ab s~ d an d inherently
bs tan tia l gr ou nd for pr oc
(5) W he re th er e is a ex ee di ng ag am st th e aceused.
press legal ba r en gr af te d
p .C. to in sti tu te an d co nt in an y pr ov isi on of Cr.
in ue pr oc ee di ng s or wh er
in th e Co de or co nc er ne e th er e is a specific provisi
d Act, pr ov id in g efficacio on
th e ag gr iev ed pa rty . us re dr es s fo r th e grievance of
(6) W he re cr im in al
pr oc ee di ng s m ai nl y ap pe
m ala fid e an d/ or wh er e ar to be at te nd ed with
pr oc ee di ng s ar e m ali cio
m ot iv e or to wr ea k veng us ly in sti tu te d wi th ult
eance on th e ac cu se d or erior
(7) W he re th e Hi gh Co w ith a pe rs on al gr ud ge .
ur t feels th at all ow in g th
wo ul d be an ab us e of th e pr oc ee di ng s to continue
e process of th e co ur t or
Th e Co ur t no te d th at en fru str ate th e en ds of justic
ds of justice ar e hi gh er e.
th ou gh justice ha s go t th an en ds of m er e law
to be ad m in ist er ed ac co
legislature.1 rd in g to la ws m ad e by
the
It wa s he ld in Sushil Suri
v. C.B.I. and Another,2 th at
Hi gh Co ur t un de r Secti in he re nt jurisdiction of
on 482 m ay be ex er cis ed
na m ely (i) to give effec un de r th re e circumstance
t to an or de r un de r Cr im s,
pr ev en t an ab us e of th e in al Pr oc ed ur e Code; (ii)
process of court; an d (iii) to
of justice. It is tri te th at al to ot he rw ise se cu re the en
th ou gh th e po we r po ss es d
section 482, Cr. P.C. is ve se d by th e H ig h Co ur t un
ry wi de bu t it. is no t un br der 1
sparingly, carefully an d id le d. It ha s to be exercise
cautiously, ex debito justit d
justice for wh ic h alo ne th iae to do re al an d substan
e co ur t exists. Ne ve rth el tial
?e sir ab le _to _la~ ~o wn ~ es s it is ne ith er feasible
y inflexible ru le wh ic h nor
~e re nt J~ ct _i on Oi w ou ld go ve rn th e exerc
th e courts. Co ur t w ou ld ise ~£
~e re nt J~ ct io n to qu be ju sti fie d in invoking
as h criminal pr oc ee di ng s its
. m th e co mp lai nt or char wh er e th e allegations ma
ge-sh de
~ d accepted in th eir en tir eet, as th e case m ay be ta ke n at th eir face value
ety do no t co ns tit ut e th e
. • •1:he ~ gh Co ur t do es offence alleged. •
lJ:':V~tigation co ns eq ue nt no t ha ve po we r to qu as h th e pr oc ee di ng
s in p~lic
re po rt m ad e to th e police e
up on a first in fo rm ati on
co ~ b l~ case: It ha s no 11l a
police to mvestigate a co po we r to in ter fe re ·w ith th e sta tu to ry rig ht
ta f. . . . gnizable case.3 An y tit s of the
s ge o mvestig i d th is
ati~n IS premature4 In th e pe on
exercise of inun er s ection at the
he re nt po we rs th e court
1. ~~ ~~~hi Venkateswarlu & another v. State of Andh
ra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2019 s.C
2. (2011) 3 Cr. L.J. 2939 . 3913
(S.C.).
3. State of_ West Bengal_ v.
S.1:'·. Naik, A.I.R. 1968 S.C
4. Jehan Singh v. Delhi Ad . 44
ministration, A.I.R. 1974 S.C 7.
. 1146.
 S 1 s1
MISCELLANEOU
.
s. ,szJ
t st a rt fu n c
ti o n in
th
g
e
a
c
s
o
a
n
n in v e st ig a ti n g a
ue!~ n c J~
y
sideration o f q ti io n bo act, otherwise, the v
e n te r mto any inquir
ery
y

in to cognizabhle
wiU J!O d to enter v is io n s c o n c e rn in g in v e sp
a
dn . ti! th e police in
;tself ~ o f the d e fe a te d . I In exercising it s is ic o n u n. d e r this
p ro gJ·u r·o t.
. sec 10anset ise
objeCovew o u ld
be
k . u ir y a s to w h e th e r th e evidence m the c
a n in q
{fenceso u rt e m b a r s u p o n •
• .
o. c t 2 , •
d uate a n d ma1or
]1 ig h S 3
w h o w ra
ti o n e r as a g • A !
reliable or n o : h v. fate o f U.P., th e p e ti o f h e r fr 11
In [JJta Sing •
c a st e m a rr ia g e o u t
w b 1 ro .th com pl~mt
d rw e n t in te r- by p et it io n :; ,s a
e r it g ainst
ed 27 years u n 6e a n d 368 I.P.C. .w a s filed a ti o n p oli c e su b m ted
n 3 6 d hi s re1atives. After in v e st ig
.~!der Sec, tioh b d n 1 6 4 , Cr. P.C. th a t d
the
a n a n e r S e c ti o n
petitioners u s ta te m e n t o f petitioner, u n d rt passed committal o rd e r a
Li ''

s C o u v es
report. Despite_ h e r. o w n fr ee will the e ti ti o n e r a n d o th e r relati
!e d o f nd of p P.C.
petitioner m a rr15 d a g a in s t a ccused, h u sb a n u n d e r S e ction 482, Cr.
warrants w e re
su e d ~ peti ti o
Sessions Ju d g e not.
who
k ~ o u rt . T h e accused file a r b e fo re th e
by the Fast Trac ~ c t~ d th e accused to
appe
c o m m it ted a n y offen
ce o r
rt d rr se d re m e
The Hig~ C o u ru ti n iz e w h e th e r the ac c u
a s c o n si d e re d b y the S u p
would himself
sc e n it w
s st il l p e n d in g there w h
The matter w a a p e rs o n becomes m o t
a jo r
rt tha t o n c e s a re n
Court. e Supreme. co·u e likes. Inter-caste marriage whole
e ld b y th
It w a s h y whomsoever
h e is h
a
. The
tional interest C o u rt a n d
e e to m a rr re in th e n
he/she is fr y la w ra th e r
they a
b
cess o f
use o f the pro eld liable to b e
u n d e r a n to b e a n a
barred h e ld ere h
in al c a se in q u e st io n w a s erefore_ the proceedings w police authorities
cr im h in e ry a n d th istration a n d
a c m in s an
admin is trat iv e m
is su e d a d irec tio n · to a d
g ir l w h ~ is m ajor u n d e rg o e e
Cou rt if a n y boy o r o is major, th
quashed. The y to se e th a t n o r m a n w h
c o u n tr a woma y p e rs o n com c h
mits
throughout th e r religious marriage with n e a n d if a n
te ny o st s u
inter-caste o r in ra ss e d o r threatened b y a s t be taken b y police again
ha ~u
couple is n o t s u c h couple s te ~ against
st der
violence a g a in • • • •
~ g a n ~pplication u n ble
• _bed. fo r m reaso4na 1
person. o d h a s been pr~scri on IS to be filed within a
o n p e ri . ~e
No limita ti
.C . H o w e v e r the applicati ~ e for filing application nly in
P le o
Section 482, Cr. d o f 90 days is reasonab ection 482 can b e mvoked e r the
p e ri o e r S u n d
~ e and a e H ig h Court und effect to a n o rd e r passed
rs o f th the e n d s
inherent p o w e namely. (i) in o rd e r to give the Court o r (i ii ) to secure f C o u rt
s f o
three situation re v e n t abuse o f process o t the abuse o f the p~ocess here n o
to ~ to prev e n edmgs w
Code o r (ii) H ig h Court may, a long d ra w n o ~ t proce a n d . quash the
of justic e. s T h e ice, in terfere
_d se c u re th e e n d s o f justu t against the accused, m
an
przmafacie ca
se is m a d e o o ld e r
e r w a s p o w e r o f attorney h
on
proceeding. . pta v. Ashutosh Gutpa,7 petiti
6

In S.P. G u
.P., 1984 C r. L.J. 343.
in d G up ta v. State o f U A.I.R. 1960 S.
C. 866.
l. G ov o f Pun jab,
v. State
2. R. P. Kapur
3309 (S.C.). 10 (Orissa). L.J. 788 (MP). .
3. 2006 C r. L.J. Behara, 1990 C r. L.J. 11 ohar So ni, 1991 C r. ad ra s)
4. Bata v. A na m a
So ni v. K amala Bai M an
ra s, 1992 C r. L.J. 2087 (M
Ram C.B.C.I.D. Mad
5. Manohar Tulsi ector o f Police,
op al v. Insp
6. R. R. G
J. 3428 (S.C.).
010) 3 Cr. L.
 788 THE CODE OF CRIM INAL PROCEDURE

of· main accused. A com plain t of ch eatin . (S.411

g was mad e agai nst p ti .
·
was posi tive asse rtion in com plain • t th at petiti e tion
oner assu red cotnpl . er. 'lhet
main accu sed to prop erty to be sold was clear. The fact
that petittoall\ant title ~
as pow er of attor ney whil e givin g assu ran~ e an~ that
he had giv :r had acted
of prop erty after receiving part of sale cons idera tion
do not lead to POSsession
that petit ione r had no know ledg e abou~ statu ~ of title
of prop erJ: :~Pt ion
was held that com plain t mak es out a prima facze case
agai nst petitioner :,or~ it
not liable to be quas hed.
d it is
It was held in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shan
kar Srivasta 1
whe n an infor mati on is lodg ed at the polic e stati on and
an offence is re:t that
then the mala fides of ~e infom:1ant ~oul_d be of sec~
ndar y importance. It i:r~
mate rial collected duri ng the mve stiga tion and e:1d
ence led in Court Which
deci des the fate of the accu sed pers on. The alleg ation
s of mala fides against the
info rman t are of no cons eque nces and cann ot by them
selv es be the sole basis for
quas hing the proc eedi ngs.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Naim 2 it ws held by
the Supreme Court
that this secti on does not confer any new pow ers on
the High Court. It merely
safe guar ds all existing inhe rent pow ers poss esse d by
a High Cou rt necessary to
secu re the ends of justice. But whe n an alter nativ e
reme dy is available to the
petit ione r in the Cou rt whic h is seize d of the matt er it
is not prop er for the High
Cou rt to exercise its juris dicti on unde r secti on 482 or
even unde r the revisional
jurisdiction. It is this principle whic h regu lates the cond
uct of the proceedings
unde r Section 482, Cr. P.C. and/ or unde r Art. 227
of the Constitution in the
High Cou rt for quas hing the orde r pass ed by the
trial cour t for issuing the
proc ess agai nst accused.
In Hamida v. "Rashid,3 bail was initially gran ted to
accu sed for offences
unde r Sections 324, 352 and 506 of Indi an Pena l Cod e.
Late r on the offence was
conv erted into Section 304 but the bail was direc ted to
cont inue even after that.
It was held that direc tion in exercise of pow er unde r Sect
ion 482 to continue bail
after conv ersio n of offence into Section 304 inste ad of
direc ting accused to apply
for bail afres h unde r Section 437 Crim inal Proc edur e
Cod e was illegal.
. Whe re ~ offence ~ mad e out on the facts alleg ed but
ISsued, the High Cou rt m the exercise of its inhe rent the process _ha s~
pow er unde r this sedi
can quas h the proc ~din gs fo~ the ends of justice. But
com men ced, the High Cou rt 1S not justified in uash once proceedings .h_a;~
ing it with out suffiet_
grou nds and with out stati ng the reasons therefor,~ If
the trial has been pen ~
fo~ 20.year s and. there appea~ to be. circumstances whic
h
fau trial, the High Cou rt will be Justified unde r this are likely to p~venthe
secti on in quashinS
.pioc eedings.5 ·. 4 • : • • • • • • •

- ere
an applicatt·on 1S
_ •

Wh •
sent to: the, ~gh <;ourt by a priso ner fro°:1 priSOn
. l
1. 2006 Cr. L.J. 4050 (S.C.).
2. A.LR. 1964 S.C. 703. , •: ...
3. c2007 ·er. L.J. 3422 (S.C.). • •
4. • Amarchand v.: Shanti Bose" AIR 1973 S.C. 799 , .
s. State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 494. \ _, • ' ; • .. : l
 MISCELLANEOUS ~

~~ d thi . 1
en de nt th e H ig h C ou rt ca n pr oc ee d un er s section.
h Jail .Su pe ri nt . of its in he re nt
d
thl'oug ot , m th e ex er ci se
~ow~r t ca on
is,
The H ig h C ou rt caennsp ec ifi ca lly pr oh ib its th e C ou rt fr om d om g.
thing whi ch th e C od • ify in g th e co nc lu si on of th e
some th th 1 id en ce ju st
an y eg al ev t • b th
examine wh~ er er eerisco nf er re d by th is se ct io n up on th e H ig h C ou r 1sto obe
er Court. Th d
e po
. •
w ti
tr I b .
g an ex tr ao rd in ar y po w er , ha s no t
JoW a ve • t ~m ab us e by a su bo rd in
at e co ur t of
•udicial and. a m uu s ed ym g a fl ag ra nt
re m
~ressed in _:1d ex ce pt fo r
its _powers.
ia l Ju di cia l M ag ist ra te, 5 a co m pl ai nt w as fil ed
v. ~pec ra tio n
In M/~. Pepsi Foods ~td. ct io n 16 of th e Pr ev en tio n of Fo od A du lte r th e
w it h Se ra ge un de
under Section 7, re ad na nt w as sold a bo ttl e of be ve
co m pl ai by th e
Act, It w as al le ge d
th at
ul te ra te d. Th e bottle w as pu rc ha se d
brand "Lehar Pe ps i" w
hi ch w as ad
e co m pl ai nt w as fil ed on M ay 6, 1994.
be r 13, 1993 an d th e ap pe lla nt s ha ve gi
ve n
complainant on Se pt em er el y sh ow th at th
co m pl ai nt m bo tll in g th e
The allegations in th e es id en cy Fo od s an d Beverags Ltd" fo r of
their br an d- na m e to
"R
pl ai nt do es no t sh ow w ha t is th e ro le
i" an d th e co m hi ch is sa id to be ad
ul te ra te d,
beverage "L eh ar Pe ps th e be ve ra ge w e
appellants in th e m an
uf ac tu re of
co m pl ai na nt co ul d sa y so an d al so if th
t as to ho w th e co nt en ts an d th e pr el
im in ar y
nor there is av er m en le ge d bo ttl e or its s
appellants m an uf ac tu
re d th e al
lie d in is su in g su m m on to th e ap pe lla nt
e re sp on de nt re sa id th at th e ap pe
lla nt s ar e
evidence on w hi ch th w it co ul d be as
also do es no t sh ow
as to ho
th e be ve ra ge or bo th an d al so th er e w
er th e bo ttl e or th e licence fo r th e m
an uf ac tu re
manufacturers of ei th e ap pe lla nt s he ld ed
nothing on re co rd to
sh ow if th
ai nt an d pr el im in ar y ev~dence re co rd
ra ge , th e co m pl de r of H ig h
of the of fe nd in g be ve pe lla nt -a cc us ed an d, therefore, th e or ie nt
makes ou t no ca se ag
ai ns t ap
on th e gr ou nd th at ther~ w er e su ff ic
as h co m pl ai nt e re m ed y w as
Court re fu si ng to qu s ag ai ns t accused an d th at al te rn at iv
ng
ground fo r pr oc ee di .
w ou ld no t be pr op er se
available un de r C od e, ed la w th at th e H ig h C ou rt ca n ex er ci
th at it is se ttl N om en cl au tr e un de
r w hi ch
It w as fu rt he r he ld cr im in al m at te rs . om
its po w er of ju di ci al
re vi ew in
an _d ~ at do es no t de ba r th e C ou rt fr
t qu ite re le va nt ss es se s un le ss th~re
is sp ec ia l
petition is fil ed is no ch ot he rw is e 1t . po th e
exercising its ju ris di ct
io n w hi
at ?~ · H m a ca se , _the co ur t fin ds th at ca n
w hi ch is m ~~ 6, th e C ou rt
procedure pr es cr ib ed vo ke its Jur1Sd1ction un de r A~ticle 22 de . It
appellants co ul d no t
in
de r Ar tic le_ ~2 ~ or ~c ~o n 482 of th e Co si on
tit io n on e un C od e of re vi
certainly tre at th e pe lo st si gh t of th at prov1s1ons ex is t m th e
rnay no t ho w ev er be ia te re lie f S~ ct io n 482 of th e C od e or
et im es for im m ed tin g so m e ~~ave er ro fil ed
rs th at
and ap ~e al bu t s~ m so r~ ed to fo r co rr ec gh
to be re io n th ou
Article 227 m ay ha ve th e su bo rd in at e courts. Th e pr es en t pe tit r
might be co m m itt ed by
22 6 ~ d 22 ! co ul d w el l be tr ea te d un de
un de r Articles
in the H ig ~ C ou rt as _one ~

----------
•
74 S.C. 1880.
Maharashtra, A.I.R. 19 P. Kapur v. State of
1 S da 1 v. State of esh, A. I.R. 1962 S.C. 1208; R.
11 te of Uttar Pr ad
2: Sa~,:,haw;i:gh v. Sta . 866. , .
p . b A I R. 19 60 S.C
lice Pu ru/ia, A.I.R . 1972 s.c . 470. , . ,
Su pdt. o( Po •
J. ~j ;;d ;a n: ith v. Dy ihar, A. I.R . 1964 S.C. 1.
•
Sta t
4. Raghubir Saran v.
S. (1998) Cr . L.J. l (S.
 79 0 THE CODE OF CR IM IN
AL PROCEDURE
Ar tic les 227 of th e Co ns
tit ut io n. 1
It w as al so he ld th at th
er e is no do ub t th at th
th e ac cu se d at an y sta ge e M ag ist ra te .
bu t th at do es no t m ea n
Se ct io n 482 of th e Co
of th e tri al if he co ns id
th at th e ac cu se d ca nn ot
er s th e ch ar ge to
ap pr oa ch th e High to u~
;;n r~l SCharge
de or Ar tic le 227 of dl es s,
pr oc ee di ng qu as he d ag th e Co ns tit ut io n to h
ai ns t hi m w he n th e co t llnder
ca se ag ai ns t hi m an d sti m pl ai nt do es no t make
ll he m us t un de rg o th e ave the
ag on y of a cr im in al tri 0
It w as he ld in Sm t. Pa a.1~t any
nful Nessa v. M d. M ira
th at th e M ag ist ra te ha j Al i an d others,3 that th
d no t fo llo we d di re ct io
pe rs pe ct iv e ca nn ot be a ns of th e H ig h Co ur t
gr ou nd fo r di re ct in g re in e fact
ba il un de r Se ct io n 482 le as e of ac cu se d abscond
Cr im in al Pr oc ed ur e Co ~roper
de .
. In a pr oc ee di ng un rs on
de r se~tion 200, if a
ev id en ce of th e ac cu se M
d, th e H ig h Co ur t sh ou ag ist ra te ha s accepted the
ai re sh in th e exercise ld no t ex am in e th at ev
of its in he re nt ju ris di idence
ac ce pt ab ili ty or re lia bi lit ct io n w ith a vi ew to
y of th e ev id en ce .4 test the
W he re th e H ig h Co ur t
fo r qu as hi ng th e or de r re fu se s to en te rta in an ap
of th e M ag ist ra te di re ct pl ic at io n un de r section 482
pe tit io ne rs on th e gr ou in g iss ue of su m m on s again
nd th at re vi sio n lie s ag st the
co ul d no t re fu se to en te ai ns t su ch or de r th e Hi
rta in it as re vi sio n on m gh Court
of th e im pu gn ed or de er e tec hn ica l gr ou nd th
r w as no t en cl os ed al on at copy
un de r th e re le va nt H ig g w ith th e pe tit io n as
h Co ur t Rules, w he n th required
re co rd s w as be fo re th e e or ig in al or de r al on g wi
H ig h Co ur t. 5 th all the
•
Th e H ig h Co ur t wh ile
ex er cis in g its ju ris di ct io
or de r sta y of ar re st of ac n un de r Section 482 canno
cu se d du rin g in ve sti ga tio 6 t
It w as he ld in Golak Ch n.
andra Nayak v. State of
th e Cr . P.C. do es no t ov Orissa,7 th at Section 482
er rid e ex pr es s pr ov isi on of
ca nn ot , in exercise of its s of la w. Therefore, High
in he re nt po w er s un de r C o~
of offence no t pe rm iss ib se ct io n 482 di re ct compou
le un de r Se cti on 320 of nding
In Dhanwanti Vaswani v. th e Cr . P.C.
Sta te, 8
I un de r Se cti on 500, I.P.C a co m pl ai nt w as m ad e
11 . Su m m on s w er e iss ue ag ai ns t the accu~~
Co ur t qu as he d th e pr oc d by th e Magistrate, the
ee di Hig f
th e ca se do no t disclose ng s ag ai ns t on e ac cu se d on th e gr ou nd that fac 0
offence of de fa m at io n ts
"ta ki ng all eg ati on in co ag ai ns t th at accused ev
m pl ai nt , as co rre ct on its en :
Su pr em e Co ur t th at th face value". It wa s held
e im pu gn ed or de r of th by ant
in te rfe re nc e by th e hi gh e H ig h Co ur t do es not
es t co ur t. warr
In Daljit Singh v. Manmo f
Ju di ci al M ag ist ra te issue han Singh,9 a co m pl ai nt th
q. su m m on s to th e M an w as fil ed an d e
ag in g Di re cto r of the Co c: y
1. Ibid. rnp
2. M/ s. Pepsi Foods Ltd.
v. Special Judicial Magis
3. (2008) 4 Cr . L.J. 4343 trate, (1998) Cr . L.J. 1 (S.
(S.C.). C.).
4. Tara Du tt v. State, A.l.R
. 1975 Ca l 450.
5. Raj Kapoor v. State (Delh
i Administration), A.LR.
6. Ashok Kumar Singh v. 1980 S.C. 258.
State, 1993 Cr . L.J. 2083
7. 19 93 Cr . L.J. 27 4 (O ris (S. C.).
sa) .
8. 19 93 Cr . L.J. 52 (S.C.)
.
9. 19 93 Cr . L.J. 38 78 (H P).
 MISCELLANEOUS 791
8~ . di.ti a1 Sess1•ons
s. 4
Bu t th e Co m pa ny fil ed a rev isi on an d th e Ad on
11 990. • d mp lai nt on the gr ou nd
01-l - g. or er ~s _w e~ as th e co
mm or un
oJl e qu ash ed th e su
d of. lur uta tio n an d als o th at no va lid sa nt tio n
pe no
Jt1dfit was filed be yo nd th e 34 of th e In du str ial Di sp ute s Ac t, 19
47
tfta rosecute the Co m pa ny
un de r Se
pe
~~
tit
on
io ne r wh o is Se cre tar y of th e ru on o
u• f
,.nted by th. e St ate . Th e .
to P . th de r of the
s grc:u• pe
..
tit io n m e Hi gh Co ur t ch all en gin g thi s or
wa kers filed a w nt lai nt it is no t
th e gr ou nd th a! at th e initia~ sta ge of th e co mp ed
w~:ions Ju dg e on
e sa nc tio n wa s a va bd on e. Th e pe tit ion wa s all ow
se b strictly pr ov ed th at do th sa tis fy its elf
t no ub t th e ap pr op ria te Go ve nm en t ha s to
to deit was he ld ~a
r applying its nu nd
Jornpany for all eg ed ma lp
to th e
ra
rel
cti
~v
ce
an
s
t
bu
fac
t at
ts fo r gr an tin g sa nc tio n to
th e ini tia
prima facie th at it ha d ap
pr os ec ute the
l sta ge of the co mp lai nt
it is
pl ied its
Go ve mm ~n t to sh ow
not necessary fo r th e to pr ov e th at
of au th or isa tio n. In fac t, it is fo r the pr os ec uti on t be
mind for gr an t
s leg al or no t by wa y of ev ide nc e, wh ich ca n no
the authority gr an ted wa the or de r qu as hin g the su mm
on in g of th e
l sta ge . Th ere fo re,
judged at thi s ini tia .
rec tor wa s se t as ide .
Managing Di 1 the ap pe lla nts we re M an ag ing Di
rec tor
em ka v. Sta te of Bih ar, ble an d
In R.S. Kh
c Li mi ted Co mp an y reg ist ere d as M /s Bi ha r Ca
and directors of a Pu bli iti ng pu bl ic
, Li mi ted . Th e ap pe lla nts iss ue d pr os pe ctu s inv by th e
Wire In du str ies
sh ar es an d pre fer en ce sh are s. It wa s giv en ou t
subscriptions of eq ui ty e Ca lcu tta St oc k
inv es tor s th at ap pli ca tio n wa s be ing ma de to th of th e
appellant to th e
g th e sh are s of the Co mp an y. Th e ap pli ca tio n
Exchange fo r en lis tin
Sto ck Ex ch an ge bu t the inv es tor s· we re ne ith er
the eff ec t wa s
company wa s rej ec ted by to the m. A co mp lai nt to th e ab ov e
y wa s rep aid th e
informed no r mo ne
tar y to the Go ve rn me nt of In dia to th e CBI th at
made by th e De pu ty Se cre ou t an y bu sin ess an d ins pit e of
rej ec tio n of th e
t in ten d to ca rry s wi th
directors di d no
Ex ch an ge the y ret ain ed sh are mo ne ys of inv es tor a
k
application by th e St oc
all eg ati on s we re inv es tig ate d by the CBI an d
e
dishonest int en tio n. Th es tri al for the offence un de r Se cti on 409,
I.P.C. on
su bm itt ed fo r e CB I
charge-sheet wa s
iza nc e wa s tak en . Th e Special Ju dic ial M ag ist rat s
the basis of wh ich co gn lla nt to dis ch arg e the m an d the va lid ity of thi
ap pe P.C. on th e
rejected the pr ay er of the Hi gh Co ur t un de r se cti on 482, Cr .
ge d be fo re the e co ur t
order wa s ch all en
pr oc ee din gs am ou nte d to ab us e. of pr oc es s of th ch
ground tha t cri mi na l le un de r tJ:te • Co mp aru es Ac t to co ve r su
ail ab
b_ecause rem ed y wa s av al wa s also •filed be fo re the Su pr em e Co ur t th at
on , an ap pe nd th at
situations. La ter
the ap pe lla nts ca nn ot be qu as he d on ly on the gr ou th e
prosecution ag ain st
pli ca nts to tak e rec ou rse to the pr ov isi on s of
it was op en to the ap he ld tha
pr os ec ute th em
t inv es tor s are en tit led to en tio n on th e
t. It wa s fu rth er
Companies Ac dis ho ne st int
l Code. Ho we ve r pr oo f of
for offences un de r the Pena ~ inc ep tio n wa s ne ce ssa ry . or it mu st be
sh ow n
th~ ve d
Part of pr om ote rs fro -f
mt en !1o n at so me ~ta ge for the ir wr on gf ul ga in an
that they de ve lop ed su ch co ur t to ex am ine
on gf ul los s to th~ inv estors. It 1s to r the tri al no t, tha t ex erc ise
causing wr a~st the ap pe lla nts 1s ma de
ou t or
t
whether a prima facie case ag !f1gh Co ur t or the Su pr em e Co ur t. Th e Hi gh Co ur
cannot be pe rfo rm ed bf ~he 482 of the Co de us ur p the
~u ld no t wh ile ex~ rc1 sm g its po we r un de r section
~h urt.
Jurisdiction of the Tr ial Co
.).
1. 1993 Cr. L.J. 2888 S.C
 THE CODE Of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
792 I.~
. n held by the Supreme court in· State of Biha . .
similarly t! has~ ower of the High Court under section 482 r "· l<.J.o
Singh1 that the inh~ren thpe prosecution prior to commencement f CaJtnot L~
invoked ,or r.
.quashing This power should be exercise
• d only .
m excPntio t-..:.1 ue
'4141 llnd
1 ding of evtdence. 2 • h •. . :-r <>naI cases
ea Bihar v. Raj Narain Singh charge-s ee~ was submitte .
. In State _of esti ation and cognizance had ~een taken. Mean: ~ Ille
Police after mvsedgmoved the High Court under· Section 482 •and thhile the
respondent accu . d•
• 1on the ground of certain 1screpancy m
• FIR
and the·
at en.,..
Stat~:'(
quash. ed the a rded during investigation
tri • • w1•thout gtvmg • • opportunity
• "'"""llt
of witnesseo·st~~:bstantiate its allegations. It was hel~-by the Supreme tco the
prosecu on r . . ' oUrt
that interference by the High Co~t at _Pre 1:°1111ary stage. was ~ot p~~ible.
What the High Court had done 1s pre_-1udgmg the q~esti.on Without· affordin
reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to s~bstantiate its allega~o:n. • . g
By exercising inherent powers under Section 482 the proc~dhlgs' in the
initial stages can be quashed only if o~ the. face of the co~pl~t, no offence is
constituted. But when there are allegations m the FIR which constitute offences
alleged, it cannot be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out
the offences for which the FIR is registered.3 .
, I

It was held in State Rep. by D.S.P., S.B.C.l.D., Chennai v. K. V. Rajenderan and

others,4 that section 482 enables the High Court to make such or4er,~ ~y be
necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The _i~erent
powers, however, are as much as controlled by principles and preced~~ as are
its express powers by statutes. If a matter is· covered by an expr~ss le~er_ of law,
the Court cannot give a go by to the statutory provisions and instead evolve a
new .~rovision in the garb of inherent jurisdiction. Section 362 of Cr. ~.C.
prohibits reope~g of a final order except in the cases of clerical o~ ari~etical
errors. Such being the position, power under Section 482 cannot be exe~cised to
reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on meri~- ; . • . ~
to c:: :ch when~ petition under Section 482 for transfer of investigali~
c!U::
the~ been l'e]ected finally by giving reasons therefor it.was not ope_n ol
interlocuto
investigatio~ :r toJ'~ a fresh order in the disposed of petition, on the~
cati~ns filed by accused and D.S.P. (S.B., C,l,D,).
It w also e ma e by the C.B.I. authorities. .. . i ,1 • '
, Dl'1',
as observ d h •• cused
(S.B., C.I.D.) before th eH't at a prayer could be made by-the ac . frOJI\ t}1e
or .~
State police autho .ti e igh Court for transferring the investigatiO~ seed~
482 in view of s:b es to the C.B., C.I.D. by filing a fresh petition un~ #
disposing of the ear:u:t ~ents ~t had taken place after the ndetdS bJd
never applied for transfe ~al P~tition was passed/ but .the !es~ thoritie5 to
the C.B;~. by makin an _rnng the investigation from· State poli~e a~
• . . , g lll~ependen~ application. • , . ..
I I I
; : f 1

l. '1993 Cr LJ - • ,.
2. 1991 C; •• 3537 (S.C.). . • •
3. R.R. • L.J. 1416 (S.C.).
4 < Gopaz v. 111Spector ,, ••
• 2'>09) 1 Cr. LJ. ~olice, CB CID Madra Cr. LJ.
 MISCELLANEOUS m
~~ t so m e pe rs on s
H .S . Chow_d hary
1
CBI filed FIR ag ai ns w ay of
In Janta Dal :· ck ba c~ . A ci tiz en filed a pe tit io n by
RS ki single
uegedlY jnvolv~~ m_ BOFOhe re by se ek in ~ . to qu as h th e prosecution. A ev er
at1blic interest. litigatio
n, w as no t maintainable. H ow
at th e pe tit io n w
he ld th H ig h Co ur i
pd e of the H ig h C ou rt er th e Ju dg e di re ct ed th e office of the d
w
!u e~ercise of his in he rethntatpohe co ul d exercise hi s discretionary revisionaitil atan ion
1ll register a case so
no r of hi s or de r sp el le d ou t th at th e in
~t ~ d te s connected
~erent powers. Th e te to qu as h th e FI R an d th e pr oc ee di ng
s face
ng e CBI di d no t, on th e
lS
f the suo motu pr oc ee di th e FI R fil ed by th
g to hi m e view
~erewith, since ac co rd in he ld th at th e Ju dg e ha d ta ke n an extrem
of it, disclose an y offenc
e. It w as
e of an y ill eg al ity be in g co m m itt ed by an y
ju di ci al notic to th e kn ow n or un kn
ow n
that the court ca n ta ke in ju ry be in g ca us ed
ev en t th e er st ep pe d
court, with a vi ew to pr e in ve st ig at io n is at its threshold. H e ov d
aggrieved pa rty , ev en w
he n th
em en t w hi ch w as un w ar ra nt ed an d uncalle
his jurisdiction an d m
ad e th e st at izance un de r section 39
7, 401
ta ki ng su o mo tu co gn e
for. Thus the or de r of Ju
dg e
in g sh ow ca us e no tice to th e CBI an d th
Cr. P.C. is su eedings
read with section 482, ev an Iy er v. St at e of Maharashtra2 proc
State was qu as he d. In
R. Mah ad
pl et ed ev en af te r th e la ps e of 12 years. It
ul d no t be com d w ou ld be violated an
d th e
against the ac cu se d co tri al of th e ac cu se
was held th at th e rig ht
of sp ee dy
h pr os ec ut io n ex er ci sing its po w er un de r
stified to qu as prejudiced in hi s defe
nce in
High Court w ou ld be ju el y to be he av ily
d w as lik ssibility of
Section 482. Th e ac cu se el y ol d in po in t of time. There w as no po
tre m
respect of in ci de nt s ex al lo w in g continuance of prosec
ution.
re su lt by ssary
achieving us ef ul
v. St at e N. C. T. of De lhi,3 th at it is no t nece
It w as he ld in Rajesh
Bajaj nt ail the
ve rb at im re pr od uc e in the bo dy of complai ainant
ld th e compl
that a co m pl ai na nt sh ou is al le gi ng , N or is it necessary th at w as dishonest
fe nc e he
ingredients of th e of or ds
e accused
th at the intention of th nt C(?mponents of th e
in so m an y w
should state into differe
fra ud ul en t. Sp lit tin g up of th e definition al l th e ingredients ha ve be
en
or tin y, w he th er
ic ul ou s scru the nee~ ~t the stag aint
e . of
offence to m ak e a m et : co m pl ai nt , is no t
in th e e compl
precisely sp el le d ou t fo un da tio n for the offence ha s be en laid m th stigation
investigation. If fact ua l oceedings du rin g inve st at ed
to qu as h cr im in al pr
st en be en
the Court sh ou ld no t ha is e th at one or tw o ingredients ha ve no t
stage merely on th e pr em is pe rm itt ed on ly in extremely
st ep w hi ch
With details. Fo r qu
as hi ng an FIR (a ~u st be so bereft of ev en th
e basic
ion in th e co m pl ai nt
rare cases) th e informat necessary for making ou t the offence.
te ly s is
facts which ar e absolu v. St at e of M ah ar as htra,4 once the proces e
aman C., th
In Subramaniam Sethur sed is recorded un de r Section 252, Cr. P. s _or
ac cu m on
m
issued an d th e pl ea of it is no t op en to accused to _seek recall o~ su d accused
at ve
Supreme Co ur t he ld th ch a case the only remedy available to aggrie
to seek discharge. In su
. P.C.
is by w ay of pe tit io n
un de r Section 482 of Cr ntral
in State of Punjab v. Ce
ar ge •s he et .-I t was held
Investigation after ch

1. 1993 Cr. L.J. 600 (S.C.).

2. 1992 Cr . L.J. 1388 (Bombay).
3. 1999 Cr . L.J. 1833 (S.C.).
4. 2004 Cr. L.J. 4609 (S.C.).
794 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[S. 482
Bureau of Investigation and others,1 that fresh investigation
or reinvestig ·ti
filing of charge-sheet by police can be ordered by High
Cou rt under ~Jn after
Cr. P.C. to secure ends of justice. Further, inherent pow
ers of High Cottr~ 482,
limited or affected by Section 173(8) of the Code. 18
not
Power to be exercised cautiously and spar ingl
y.-It was h Id .
Sanapareddy Maheedhar Sesliagiri a_nd another v. ~ta~e of Andh
ra Pradesh} tha: whiJIIl
exercising its power under Section 482 of Crurunal
Procedure Code the Iii e
Court should be extremely cautious and slow to inter
fere with the investigatigh
and/ or trial of criminal cases and should not stall
the investigation and/on
prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any
manner of doubt that ~r
F.I.R. does not disclose commission of any offen
ce or that the allegation:
contained in the F.I.R. do not constitute any cogn
izable offence or that the
prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is conv
inced that it is necessary
to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Cour
t. In dealing with such
cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that the
judicial intervention at the
threshold of the legal process initiated against a perso
n accused of committing
offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and
social interest. The people
and the society have a legitimate expectation that
those committing offences
either against an individual or society are expeditiously
brought to trial and if
found guilty, adequately punished.
•
It was held in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 3
, th~t the inherent
powers unde r Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code
are to be used "sparingly,
with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases." How
ever, the words rarest of
rare cases merely emphasise what is intended to be
conveyed by the words
"sparingly and with circumspection." The expression
"rarest of the rare c~" is
not used in the sense in which it is used with refer
ence to punishment for
offence unde r Section 302 I.P.C.
'
It was held in Didigam Bikshapathi and another v. State
of A.P.,.4 that the
inherent powers possessed under Section 482 by the
High Court are very wide
and it requires great caution in its exercise. Under Secti
on 482 courts ~ve all
such powers as are necessary to do right and' undo
wrong in course of
administration of justice on principle that when the law
it gives him that without which it cannot exist. ,
a
gives person anything
.
It was held in Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. and Other 5
s, that the inherent
power unde r Section 482, Cr. P.C. has to be exercised
sparingly, carefully an~
only in situations laid down in the section. If any
abuse of the proc ~ ~
brought to the notice of the Court, then the Cour
t would be justified. lll
preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers
in absence of specif!C
provisions in the statute. However, no hard and fast
rule can be laid ~own lll
regard to cases in which inherent power can be used
to quash proceedings.

1. (2011) 4 Cri.L.J. 4928 (S.C.)•.

2. (2008) 2 Cr. L.J. 1375 (S.C.).
3. (2008) 2 Cr. L.J. 1927 (S.C.).
4. (2008) 1 Cr. L.J. 724 (S.C.).
s. (2009) 1 Cr. L.J. 350 (S.C.).
 MISCELLANEOUS m
t
~~ rishetty Mahesh an
d ot
e o f ': .P . v. G ou he
n b use of pr ocrs, that sth ef
It w as he ld in St at e ex er cr se d sp ar in gl y fo r pr ev ti
en g a d . .
es 0
w er ha s to b so un
nt po d f • . e. In te rf er en ce m us t be on
p1 es an d
ifl}lere
urt or to se cu re en s o Ju st ic
st if le le o- iti m at e p ro se cuti o npn na
b e ex er ci se d to o·
co power sh ou ld n o t .
hm i C ho pr a v. State o f Uttar Pr
adesh &
the R as
rt m_ th e _case of • d en t of
The Su p~ em e C o u w it h fi ve ap pe al s ar is in g fr om th e sa m e JU gmIP C to
other 2 ( d ea d
d ed alCon g ) h I
H i h th er e is no th in g in Section 498-A of
Art
the Allahaba
,
g . o u rt e d th at ha s to be filed ne ce ss ar il y by w om en 50
am t for_ cruelt:y fa th er
ind~ca!e th at co m pl T he re fo re , co m pl ai nt filed by he r
s.
an d o r hi s r~ la ti ve d on th at gr ou nd .
v i~ se ~ by hu sb ca nn ot be qu as he
is maintainable an
d th e co m pl ai nt co m pl ai nt , hu sb an d an d
w if e
fi lin g of
~ ~ e in st an t ca
se , o n th e da y of in In di a. T he al le ga ti on
s w er e
no t li vi ng ha d be en
te ly an d w er e il s of an y in ci de nt
were living se pa r~ if ic da te s or de ta rc e
gene~al an ~ sw ee pi
ng an ~ n o sp ec
co m pl ai nt af te r pr oc ee di ng fo r di vo
of ti on
~ pl am t. th e fi li ng as t to di vo rc e pe ti
men~o_n_ed m th e co -l aw . It w as fo un d to be co un te r bl ry
s tr ut ia te d b y so n- m or he r fa th er fo r de m an d of do w
wa ug ht er
r co m pl ai nt by da d in di vo rc e pr oc ee
di ng s.
There w as no pr io m en t w as al le ge Khan,3 a
or cruelty. A ls o, n
o ha ra ss as ht ra v. Salman Salim
of M ah ar am ed by
g e. -I n State qu as hi ng ch ar ge fr
Fr am in g o f C h ar 48 2, C r. P. C . fo r It w as
un de r Se ct io n di an Pe na l C od e.
petition w as fi le d un de r Se ct io n 30 4, P ar t II of In
s or sufficiency o f
ou rt fo r of fe nc e w ei gh co rr ec tn es
trial C ow t to l to
t op en fo r H ig h C ow t ab ou t non-existence of m at er ia
held th at it w as n o C P ar t II of In di an
en ce . F in di ng w as gi ve n by H ig h de r Se ct io n 30 4,
evid ab le un by
an offenc.e pu ni sh pr em at ur e an d th e tr ia l w as di re ct ed
frame ch ar ge fo r be t.
l C od e. T he fi nd in g w as he ld to ar ge s fr am ed by M ag is tr at e' s ~o ur
Pena si s of ch nc lu si on th at th er
e is
t to pr oc ee d on ba
the Su pr em e C o w ie d th at if M ag is tr at e comes to co Il of
w as fu rt he r cl ar if nc e un de r Se ct io n 304 of P ar t
It offe or be in g
to ch ar ge se ri ou s ut in an y m an ne r
sufficient m at er ia l to do so w it ho or
an Pe na l C od e he sh al l pr oc ee d
or fi nd in gs of th e H ig h C ou rt
In di io ns
nc ed by ob se rv at
hindered or in fl u; s
ou rt . ri m in al Pr oc ed ur e m ak es no ex pr es
Sessions C a il .- T he C od e of
C er th el es s,
Cancellation o f B il gr an te d un de r se ct io n 436. N ev pe rs on
nc el la ti on of a ba er to ca us e an y
provision fo r th e ca s un de r section 482 in he re nt po w hi m to cu st od y if it
ig h C ou rt ha an d to co m m it
the H re st ed ut io n
le offence to be ar ng w it h th e pr os ec
aceused of a ba il ab as in tim id at in g, br ib in g or ta m pe ri e ov er ri di ng in he re nt
w , th
is fo un d th at he
at te m pt in g to abscond. H ow ev er he n th e H ig h C ou rt is
Witnesses or w as
vo ke d in ex ce pt ional cases on ly w le ss th e ac cu se d is
in fe at ed un
power sh ou ld be ds of j~stice wi_~ be det. Customs Collector, Bombay,s it
at th e en
satisfied th anJt v. A~st C ou rt
nu ru tte d to cu st od y: ' In Rattlal Bh an t th at in he re nt po w er of th e H ig h rs on al
co th e ap pe ll io n of pe
was t nd ed on be ha lf of or st at ut e, therefore, de pr iv at
by an y legi sl at io n ig h C ou rt in
is cton ~. c err ed b 11 ·m g hi s b a1·1 b y an or de r of th e H
co1u t y cance
~bno erty of th e ap pe ll an
1. (2010) 4 Cr .
L.J. 3844 (S.C.).
2297.
A.I.R. 20 19 S.C. 0 (S.C.).
92 1967 S.C. 1659.
2. (2 00 4) Cri.L-J.
Cu sto ms collector, Bombay, A.LR.
3 Astt.
• 0 ,.tilal Bhanji v.
4 . .,.._
s. [b id.
ilSS tnt: "l'Pt:w ::tUJ.Luucu..u.1, ........- •• - - - - - · - - - - - - ~
iippeal will be heard to be given-
f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
'f the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
:f the Code of Criminal Procedure, l ~ \; :~
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, l
~~!\ •

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

'.-i1 wit
796 (S. 412
¢ i&! co
. f ·ts inherent powers is violative of the constitutional protection ,....d ,.ie~ we
exercise o 1 b t ti • ~, er
Article 21 of the Constitution. The a ove con en on was re,ected by the i"\,j\det of r
1
Supreme Court and it was held that: 1 0rd~1,Th c
,-tlte rvo--
"Wh n the Constitution or any enacted law has embraced nd l J 0pet ar
ede the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the th High Court W~ch l~ pt u,oft\ s
confirm d • • d' tion h ~s e sanction of an
previously existed, that pow~r an J~is ic
, tJtt JJ.
P1~.d to
enacted "law" within the mearung of Article 21. The inherent powers of the 1,_ow,/- ts
High Court preserve~ by ~~ti~n ~2 .of the Code. of C ~ Procedure
Iiesr'11detl
are thus vested in it by law within the mearung of Article .21. The auash
procedure for invoking the inherent powers is regulated by rules framed . tinia Jacie• c
by the High Court . The power to make such rules is conferred on the f"~
High Court by the Constitution. The ntles preyiously. in force were ' d for
continued in force by article 372 of the Constitution. The order of the High groun
Court cancelling the bail and depriving to the appellant of his personal ~e :
liberty is according to procedure established by law and is not violative of gve nseam
Article, 21." ,, I II • ,
would_
437 and section 439 of il(eption.
Section 482 is not controlled by section 436, section
1 ,. , . t
. amount to
this Code. • fl cheati
2 Court in
It was held in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, that the • !raudulen
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. would not interfere
represen
with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean oo the pa
from the time of the lodging of the F.I.R. till the submission of the report by the
intention
officer-in-charge of police station in Court under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C~.This
field is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency. Inherent powers under Section 4
Section 482 cannot be exercised by Court. : . • , , •; •. .. n ::; ... .;
•. _It is
It was further held that inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. can be cruninal
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or. otherwise to secure compla
the end~ of justice. The power can, therefore, be exercised to quash the criminal real test
proceedings on the following grounds :- ' ,. ,- - 1 • ' • • • : '
~ cheat
i

(1) Where an allegation made in the F.I.R. or complaint even~if they are
ta~en at ~eir face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
::~
1
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused• • "iew
•~
(2) Where the ~controve rted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint
and ~e ~vidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the ~g
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused· . !his
. Of U:
(3) Where ther~ ~ an express legal bar in any of the pr~visions of the
Code of ~rmunal Procedure or the concerned Acts to the institution ab\lse
and ~ontinuan~e of the proceedings. But this power has ,to be 'o
exercJ.Se~ only ma rare case and with great circumspection. • . · ~h
. In State 0/ Gu1arat v. Salimbhai Abdul Gaffar Sheikh,~ the respondents-accused
did not choose to apply for bail before the Special Court for offences under ~" ~
v. 1
POTA_ and consequ~ntly there was no order of refusal of bail for offences under • ll,6
the said Act. The single Judge of High Court exercising powers under Section ~13
' '
•• • O
I. HaZJlri LAI v. Rameshwar Prasad, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 484.
2. (2003) Cri.L.J. 3117 (S.C.). ,. l
•
3. (2003) Cri.L.J. 4348 (S.C.).
i.
l,
 MISCELLANEOUS ~1

s~ an te d th em b il
It
d w it h Se ct io n 48 2, C r. P.
or de r of th e H
C . gr
ig h C ou rt is cl ea i ;a s h~ld_ b.y ~ e
c!1on
C ou rt th at th e ca n on Ja r fil->: w 1 ou t Junsd1
439 r: e se d al ag am st
e Sc he m e of th e PO T A th e ac cu Y e an ap pe io n Bench
511preder th is
f al f b il d b
y th e Sp ec ia l C ou rt be fo re a D iv t
s UJ1 a pa ss e ac cu se d w ou ld no
~ order of re us o de r gr an ti ng ba il to
d, therefo~e, th e or e or de r of th e H ig
h C ou rt
of the High C ou rt an ve n on m er it s th
be proper and_ ha s
to be se t as1d_e. E ic pr ov is io n fo r gr an t o f ba
il ta ki ng
a sp ec if e
is far from sa ttsf~c to
ry• T he re be in g
e H ig h C ou rt w hi le en la rg in g th
th
482, _Cr. P.C. by •
recourse to Se ct io n n ba il w as no t pr op er .
o in FIR
respondents ac cu se d U ni on of In dia1 th e al le ga tio ns
.- In D.C. Ja in v. in g
Qu~shing _of F IR ti ng an d a ci vi l su it w as al so pe nd
ea
d th e of fe nc e of ch en cy of civil su it
is no
prima Jacze co ns ti tu te he ld th at pe nd
m e offence. It w as . re po rt . . .
in respect of th e .sa fo rm at io n'
th e fi rs t in nt ra ct w ou ld no t
ground for qu as hi ng ev er y br ea ch of co
it io n' of, la w is · th at ses br ea ch of co nt
ra ct
The se tt le d pr op os d on ly in th os e ca
e ve ry
nc e of ch ea ti ng an pt io n pl ay ed at th
give rise to an of fe e·_w as an y de ce
uld am ou nt to ch ea ti ng w he re th er
ve lo pe d la te r on , th e sa m e ca nn ot
wo de
nt io n to · ch ea t has· ti tu ti ng an of fe nc e
inception. If th e in te ot he r w or ds fo r th e pu rp os e of co ns e ac cu se d ha d
In th
amount to ch ea ti ng . pl ai na nt is re qu ir ed to sh ow th at is e or
of cheating, th e co m
at · th e tim e of m in g pr om
ak
e
ud ul ent or di sh on es t in te nt io n
ga tio ns ar e m ad e in re ga rd to fa il ur
fra alle lp ab le
in a ca se w he re th e absence of a cu de r
representation. E ve n e, in
ac cu se d to keep hi s pr om is
nt , no offence un
on the pa rt of th e of m ak in g initial pr om is e be in g ab se t.
intention at th e ti m
e
e ca n be sa id to ha ve be en m ad e ou
di an Pe na l C od
Section 420 of th e In e ou t a ci vi l w ro ng as al so a
It is tr ue th at a gi
;e n
1
set
of facts m ay
a ci vi l
m
re
ak
m ed y m ay be av ai la bl e
to th e
he
im in al of fe nc e an d on ly be ca us e to qu as h a cr im inal pr oc ee di ng . T
cr nd e
lf ca nn ot be a gr ou th e cr im in al of fe nc
complainant th at it se al le ga tio ns in th e co m pl ai nt disclose at at th e ve ry
real test is w he th er
th e
t ca se th er e is no th in g to sh ow th ch ea t
~f cheating or no t.
In th e pr es en
ha lf of th e a c ~ d pe rs on s to ou r
an y in te nt io n on . be
ion 420, IPC. ~
mc:ption th er e w as pr ec ed en t fo r an_ offence -~ d er Sect e at all. C nm in al
~hich is a co nd it io
n fenc
do es no t di sc lo se an y c ~ a l of to be mala fide or
view the co m pl ai nt t be- en co ur ag ed w he n 1t IS . fo un d rt s w hi le ex er ci si ng
no ou
proceedings sh ou ld th e pr oc es s of th e court. Su pe no r C ou r op in io n, in vi ew
us e of ds of justic e. In
otherwise an ab st ri ve to se rv e th e en n to co nt in ue w o ~ d am ou nt to an
w er sh ou ld al so
this po igati~ in
in g th e police invest e !f tg h C ou ~ ~o m nu tte d an er ro r to
of these facts al lo w th e
s of C ou rt an d al Pr oc ed ur e C od
abuse of th e pr oc esth e po w er un de r Section 482 C ru nm
refusing to exercise 2 t
quash the proceeding
s.
0 Ka rn _a tak a,
3
~ er e th at th e ap pe ll an on
Taneja v. Sta!e /
au to ri ck sh aw
Brief facts in Manikhi Jawa m et With an accident w it h an dr iv in g M ar ut i.
Saks w as
No. 1 an d hi s wife 0 in th e morning, while Sakshi Ja w a na m el y Mrs. Laxmi
l3.6.13 at ab ou t· 10
.3 th e au to ,
pa ss en ge rs , w ho w as travelling by
One of th e
.
OC) ll S (P & H) L.J. 2455 (S.C.).
1. 1994 Cr . L.J. (N v. St at e of Ke ra/a,
2. Vesa Holdings
P. Ltd.
83 (S.C.).
3. 2015 Cr . L.J. 14
798 THE CO DE OF CRI MIN AL PRO
CEDURE

Ga nap ati, sus tai ned inj uri es and

she wa s du ly adm itte d in the S
for tre atm ent . Sak shi Jaw a, the ts. 48i
app ell ant No . 2, is sai d to ha~
hos pit al exp ens es of the inj ure d tos ~ liosPitai
and the ma tte r is sai d to ha ve
set tle d bet we en the inj ure d and ~ Paid all th
the app ell ant s and no FIR w
Co nst abl e, wh o wa s pre sen t at th • eeln c\ll)icabt
e tim e o f mc1
. .d
ent , .
dir ect as
ed the odged. l'hey
me et Mr s. Ka sun , Police Ins pec
Na nga lor e City. Th e app ell ant s
tor , Pu lak esh i Nagar Traffic p
alle ge tha t as soo n as the y ent ere
ti
Pellants to
Mr . Ka sun , he beh ave d in a rud ~ ; : 8~tion.,
e ma nne r. On the ord ers of Mr
dep uty tol d the app ella nts tha t the I< 0 ~fice of
y are boo kin g the m on the charg~
neg lig ent dri vin g. 0
f asun, his
rash and
Being agg rie ved wi th the ma nn
app ella nts pos ted com me nts on er wi th wh ich the y we re trea
ted
the Ba nga lgo re Traffic Police Fac
acc usi ng Mr . Ka sun of his ebo k ' the
mi sbe hav iou r and als o for wa
com pla ini ng abo ut the har ass me rde d ; pag~,
nt me ted ou t to the m at the
Re spo nde nt Pol ice Ins pec tor . Th hands ~~
e res pon den t no. 2-P oli ce Ins
com pla int reg ard ing the pos tin pec tor ~ d e
g of the com me nt on the Fac
app ella nts and sub seq uen tly FIR ebook bye tha
wa s reg iste red aga ins t the app
offences pun ish abl e un der Sec tio ellants f e
ns 353 and 506, IPC on 14.6.13.
or
In exercise of its jur isd icti on un
der Sec tio n 482, Cr. P.C., the cou
be ~xt rem ely cau tio us to int erf rt should
ere wi th the inv est iga tio n or tria
cas e an d sho uld no t sta ll the inv l of a criminal
est iga tio n. Ev en goi ng by the unc
alle gat ion s in the FIR, no ne of ontroverted
the ing red ien ts of the alleged
satisfied. Th e cou rt op ine d tha offences are
t in the facts and circ um sta nce s
wo uld be unj ust to all ow the pro of the case, it
ces s of the cou rt to be con tin ued
app ella nts . In the res ult , the im pug against the
ned ord er of the Hig h Co urt is set
app eal is all ow ed and the FIR reg aside. The
iste red aga ins t the app ella nts is
quashed. 1
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2
is a cas e rel atin g to matrimonial
bet we en hu sba nd and wif e res dispute
ult ing in ini tiat ion of cri min al pro
lat er on com ing to mu tua l set tlem ceeding and
ent . Wh en suc h dis put es are res
by wif e agr eei ng to rejoin the olved either
ma trim oni al hom e or mu tua l
hu sba nd and wif e and als o mu separation of
tua l set tlem ent of oth er pen din g
res ult · wh ere of bo th sid es app disputes as a
roa ch the Hig h Co urt and join
qua shi ng of the cri min al pro tly pray for
cee din gs or the first inf orm atio
com pla int filed by the wif e un der n report or
Sections 498-A and 406 of Ind ian
the pra yer can not be dec lin ed
non -co mp oun dab le un der Section
for the Co urt to qua sh the cri min
on the gro und tha t since the
320 of the Co de, the ref ore it is not
al pro cee
Penal Code,
offenc~s
pe ~s sh :
-~r
Su pre me Co urt obs erv ed tha t it din gs or F .I.R . or complamt. uine
is the du ty of the Co urt to encour
set tle me nts of ma trim oni al dis put age gen
es.
. It wa s als o ma de clear tha the • MadhU
Limaye-v. State of Maharashtra,3 t doe dec isio n of the Su pre me Co urt 1ll
osition
lim itin g po we r of qua shi ng the s no t lay do wn any gen era l pro
cri min al pro cee din gs or F.I.R.·o~ ) . t as
ves ted in Sec tio n 482, Cr. P .C. or comp a~ the
ext rao rdi nar y pow er und er Article 6 0
. . 22
1. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnata
ka, 2015 Cr.· L.J.. 1483 (S.C.). . •
2. (2003) Cri.L.J. 2028 (S.C.). ,
3. (1978) Cr.L.J. 165 (S.C.). 1 • • ••
 MISCELLANEOUS 799

S. 4821 .
u rp ose of se cu nn th en ds o f justice
if fo r th e p
. tion. T I1 erbef or e, S ec ti on 320 f C
g e
ba r
1
stitll
Jtlrlg of f J.R. ec o m es n ec es sa ry
It . ~ r. P. C. o u ld no t be a
w
cor er o f qu as hi ng
.
e r, a different mse atter
qt.185 exercise o f p o w
circumst an ce s ;w e v ;5' to exerci or
iO th
~ing upon th e facts an d o ea case whether
Je~ch power. 1 •
nots
.
v. R am es h G an dhi' t J"udgm en t w as ob ta in ed b y p ay m g
In Union o f In di a ll . g th at ju d g m en t be ne fi • . as
t. F •I •R • a eg m su tin g pr_i vate company wrt .
aud with co ur
cu se d w h o h ad conspired to pp re ss m at en al fact fr om oC ou •
Ir tained by ac g o f F IR
in at co ur t ca n no t th g m to
ob he ld th at q u as h : • • o n gr ou nd • •
op er .
It was_ n co u rt w as un pr
allegation of fr au d o
•
ai K um ar A I d another•2 th at m
Rajasththan v. '/ R grawa an ha s
It w as h el d· inb St·bat e o f at th e ac cu se d is ab ou t to re ti re
F IR fa ct th qu as h
. n er y c~ se e_ ot be a gr ou nd to
quashing • • • m 5 tl ga ti on fo r m an y ye ar s ca nn
rr up ti on in ev er y
ag ~ ny o f m v~ e is ra m pa nt co
suffered m su ch ca se s w he society.
n th er
. sh ~ w m g m er cy in
F.I.R al s
se n d w ro n g si gn 3 ,proceedings w er e init
iated for
walk of life w o u ld f Pu njab ,
Kang v. State o ye ar s de la y in
~ A m ri nd er Si~gh or ti on at e to income. :There w as 4 of pr op er ty an d
dI S pr op va lu e
am~ssm? w ea lt h en qu ir y, . as se ss m en t of en t. It
gi s~ ~~ on of th ~ ca se be ca us e o f
. et c. ca us ed by vigilance de pa rt m th e
re en t e as
s o f b an k st at em e fi rs t in fo rm at io n re po rt w as m ad
scrutinismg de ta il ng th ti ti on er s
was held th at n o ca
se fo r qu as hi
no t re su lt ed in pr ej ud ic e to th e pe
as on ab le o r it h ad
delay w as n o t un re ta ry evidence. _
when case re st s u p o n do cu m en
4 th e F.I.R. •specifically
m en ti on ed · ab ou t
St at e o f U .P . v. O.P. Sharma, an d th e ac cu se d w as ch ar ge d w it h
In licence as hi ng
or ag e of oi l an d oi l se ed s w it ho ut m od it ie s A ct . It w as he ld th at qu tu ti ng
st C om
ti on 31 7 E ss en ti al in gr ed ie nt s co ns ti
offence un de r S ec h C ou rt o n gr ou nd of absence of •
ig
of F.I.R. b y th e H 5 dg ed
offence is n o t pr op
er . .
f Ra ja st ha n an d an other, FIR w as lo 6.
d Others v. State o ions 498-A an d 40
In Chandralekha an la w s al le gi ng offences un de r Sect w he re
ai nst hu sb an d an d in ac ti on ha d oc cu rr ed at pl ac e d
ag
P en al C od e. P ar t of ca us e of ed at th at p! a~ e ca n no t be qu as he
Indian . lo ~g e~ el y
on de nt m ¥t "i ed to ap pe ll an t. F.I.R am st ap pe ll an t s in -l aw s ar e ex tr na ge
re sp at io n. ag te r m ar
0 n gr ou nd of
ju ri sd ic ti on .· A ll eg at tr ib ut ed to them. R es po nd en t af oc ee di ng s
N o specific ro le as he ld th pr at
general in na tu re . sb an d an d no t w it h in-laws. It w law. H en ce F.I.R. w as
hu cess of
resided w it h he r in -l aw s is an ab us e of, p_ro •
agai ns t ap pe ll an t's ts in -l aw s.
pe ll an to a
te nt it re la te s to ap 6
civil su it re la ti ng e of •
quashed to th e ex W es t Be ng al , a
rwal v. State· o f e si gn at ur e of on
In Kamaladevi Aga n of a Pa rt ne rs hi p firm w he re in th ou rt an ~ th e sa m e
ol ut io ~m.e C
forged de ed of di ss rg ed w as pe nd in g be f? re t~e Supr cr1mmal co m pl am
t re la ti ng
pa rt ne rs w as fo oc ee di ng fi le d a
the it ia te d th e civil pr
person w ho ha d in
.J. 35 00 (S.C.).
1. (2 01 2) 3 Cr i.L
.J. 47 54 (S.C.).
2. (2 01 2) 4 Cr i.L
41 (P & H ).
3. 19 94 Cr . L.J.
18 78 (S.C.).
(1 99 6) Cr . L.J. (S.C.).
) 3 Cr i.L .J. 36 44
47 33 (S .C .).
r. L.J.
800 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(S. 4ei
to forgery of the same deed. The High Court in exercise of its inh
under section 482, Cr. Procedure C~de quashed the criminal procee:nent Power
ground that a civil proceeding relating to same document and institu gs on th
same person was pending for scrutiny before the Supreme Court. It ted by th:
the Supreme Court that the High Court. was not justified in q::s ~Id by
proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondent partn hing the
on the ground that the very foundation of criminal case, namely ~rs llletely
document was under scrutiny by Supreme Court in a civil proceed~g ?rg~ry of
by the same person i.e., the complainant in the criminal case. It was :tituted
that the criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance w•:rved
procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure ~d the
pendency of civil action in different court even though higher in status the
authority cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings. and
1
In Mohd. Shamim v. Nahid Begum, the petitioner and the respondent here·
were married as per the rites governing the marriage under the Mus~
Personal Law. Subsequently, the petitioner divorced his wife. Nahid Begum
thereafter filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section
406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was compromised between the
parties in the Court wherein wife agreed to accept the amount of Rs. 2,75000
towards mehar amount and present and future maintenance. The settlement was
arrived at the intervention of the judicial officer. Later in her complaint the wife
pleaded that she was not aware of the contents thereof and affidavits were got
signed by misrepresentation of facts. It was held by the Court that ex1acie
settlement appeared to be genuine and plea of wife cannot be accepted. In view
of the conduct of wife in entering into settlement, continuance of criminal
proceedings would be abuse of process of Court, therefore the first information
report was quashed.
In E. Tirupem Reddy v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nandyal, 2 F.I.R. was
filed against petitioner accused under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for causing insult or
humiliation in public view. A writ petition was filed by the accused for
quashing of F.I.R which was dismissed by a single judge of the Andhra P~ad~
High Court. Thereafter an appeal was filed in the High Court against reJecti0~
of application for quashing of F.I.R. The defence counsel pleaded that there 15
no allegation in the F.I.R. that the words uttered by accused/writ pe~tioner
were uttered in public view with an intention of insulting or intimidatin~ :
third respondent as the third respondent himself in F.I.R. itself had mentton •
that it was a public road and it occurred in the presence of his wife and o~e
_Nagam Yerr~. It was. hel~ by the Court that the question whether the wor~
were utter~ ~ ~ public view <;>r not is a ,question of fact which coul~ · al
decided dunng trial only. The~ef~re F.I.~. ~~ot be quashed and he~ce appe :
was dismissed. • , , · ed
In State of Maharashtra v. Sayed Mohammed Masood,3 the FIR was quash of
in which allegations of offence was made under section 420, 406 and 120-B
, i J ' I • " ' •
'
t. 2005 Cr. L.J. 889 (S.C.). '
•
I
.. .
.
I •

2. 2006 Cr. L.J. 1606 (A.P.). .,

)

3. (2010) Cr. L.J. 461 (S.C.).

' .
 MISCELLANEOUS
001
-~ .
tition of co mp lai na nt did no t dis clo se an y off enc e H
s. er, all ega tio ns
FIR an d ma ter ial s col lec ted du rin g inv est iga ti o~ ev
J.f.C. ~e
its logi· cal en d thone st" owthseom ed facts
ow ed to be tak en to rei ore or er of
11,ade lllhould be all . bl b . g
,
Of fic er d. d
n·d1 s FIR is ha e to e set asi de. Inv est iga tin to
,~ 1 . g wa s ire cte
inv est iga tio n fai rly an d im par tia lly .
qt1ashu; .
c0ndt1C
lal Ko tha ri v. Do sukhan Sam ad Khan Sindhi',1 the ap pe11an t 1s
rat Amrat
In Bha • A · · 0 . of illegal tra nsp ort ati on of
aJ\ AniJnal Rig hts v1st. n rec eip t of me ssa ge
~ti by
he inf orm ed the pol ice . Th e go ats an d she eps we re sei zed
ts and she eps e of the ft
ant to FIR file d ag ain st res po nd en ts an d oth ers for offenc
go~ce pu rsu of the go ats an d
elty to ani m~ ls. _Th e res po nd en ts, cla im ing to be ow ner s
:d cru
ca~ on un de r. sec tio n 451 an d 457 of Cr. P.C. for cu sto dy of
sheep filed an ap pl! ~y the ma gis tra te. Th e res po nd ent
s filed
ap pli cat ion _w as re1 ect ed
the ca~e. T~ : Ma gis tra te
pet itio n ~ef o~ e Hi gh Co urt a?a ms t the ord er of Ma gis tra te. e
the wn t
cat ion an d ha d dir ect ed the inv est iga tin g officer to tak
rejected the ap pli filed wr it
of all go ats an d she ep fro m res po nd ent . Re spo nd ent
possess ion
Hi gh Co urt aga ins t the ord er of Magistrate. Th e Hi gh Co urt
petition bef ore the ant to shi ft the go ats an d she ep
in pro pe r
m ord er dir ect ed the app ell g
by an int eri
ole un de r the sup erv isi on an d in pre sen ce of inv est iga tin
manner to Pa nja rap res po nd ent un de r sec tio n ll( l)(
d) of the
e Hi gh Co urt con vic ted the
officer. Th e also.
cau sin g cru elt y an d im po sed fin
Cruelty to An im als Ac t, 1960 for the
me Co urt set tin g asi de the ord er of Hi gh Co urt he ld tha t
The Su pre mi tte d sai d
wa s ille gal be cau se no ne of the m wa s alleged to hav e com
order • •• • • • ' . • •
offences. ; •
.,I •

filed by
;~, Kantilal, the app eal s we~e
2
In Chirag M. Pathak .;,. Dollyb s~d by the Hi gh Co urt wh ere by
the co mm on jud gm ent pas
appellants -against s the rei n un de r
h Co urt all ow ed the app lic ati ons filed by the res po nd ent e Fir st
the Hig
Co de of Cr im ina l Pro ced ure, 1973 an d qu ash ed the fiv
Section 482 of
. Fac ts of the cas e an d' the iss ues inv olv ed in the se app eal s
Information Re po rts in different Police Sta tio ns aga
ins t fiv e
rt. Six FIR s we re reg iste red es
were sho
ati ve Ho usi ng Soc ieti es for ~ommissi~n of var iou s offenc
different Co -O per arers an d oth er
ged to ha ve be en com mi tte d by the President, Office Be 467, 468, 471,
alle ,
der Sections 406, 409, 420, 465
persons of the five Societies un Co de. Th e acc use d fel t agg rie ved by the
of the Ind ian Pen al
120-B an d 477-A ed the m for
atio n of abo ve- me nti on ed five FIRs wh ich ha d im pli cat tio n 482 of
reg istr r sec
filed Criminal Ap pli cat ion s un deash ing of the
commission of sev era l offences, of Gu jar at an d sou gh t qu
the Co de in the Hi gh Co urt nd ed on the
e challenge wa s essentially fou
above-mentioned five FIRs. Th FIR took care of rem ain ing five FIRs an d,
ground tha t filing of • the first re wh oll y unc all ed for an d sho uld
no t hav e
rem ain ing fiv e FIR s we t
therefore the
ina sm uch as the fiv e FIR s are no thi ng bu t rep eti tio n of the firs
been reg iste red ed to be qu.ash ed .
FIR an d hen ce all the five FIRs des erv she er
s hel d in app eal ~ t i~ is on ly wh en on rea din g the FIR, as cas e
It wa niz abl e
ticed an d when_ no _prima facie cog
~bsurdity in the allegations 1s _no g du e to abs urd ity m the all ega tio ns or wh en
is ma de ou t on its me re rea din
- 1. (2010) Cr. L.J. 379 (S.C.).
2. 2018 Cr. L.J. 93o (SC).

~ ff
r:~~~ ~~ ~u~ 1973 (2 ol \974).
, Code of Crimin al Proced ure, 1973 (2 °~ ;:,~)·•
"Code of Crimin al Proced ure, 1973 (2 o
; Code of Crimin al Proced ure, 197'3 (1 of 197-t).

THE CODE Of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

IS. 41
so2 1
. fade cognizable case and also disclose retnarkabI
facts discthlose prt mF1.1IRs as if the first FIR is .filed second time With no !1.~t ih.
t .d . -ICll\ge .,
between e two may ,~ appro~r1a ef c_ase, cons1 er it proper to 4Uasin
allega tions then the Cour t
the second FIR. The High Court, ~ edxerc1se_.ma o t~ts pofwthersfunder Section 482 ofh
ot undertake a detaile exam ton o e acts .conn 4..._ __. a..
1
the Code, cann as an appellate court and d raws 1•t own cone us1on.
·-uu:a q1 ""-
""
FIRs by acting 1
ls were db
In the case of Mu11shiran1 v. State of Rajasthan, the appea
Court Wherein~
against the final judgment and order pas ~ by the High
on 306 ~f IPC. The Court observed
High Court quashed the FIR filed unde r Secti
witho ut prope r investlPfion
that the High Court prematurely quashed the FIR
being conducted by the police a~d that it ~s no mor~ integ
ral that ~on 482 of
Cr. P.C. has to be utilized cautiously while qu~shing the•
FIR. This court in 1
to a conclusion that
catena of cases has quashed FIR only after 1t comes
nt to abuse of the
continuing investigation in such cases woul d only amou
inves tigati on which needed
process. In this case at hand, the court abridged the
rning the existence agail
to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the FIR conce
deceased prior to the il}eg
or non-existence of any prior mental condition of the
iry was pending and mac
commission of suicide. In light of the fact that the enqu
tigati on, we are of the considered resJ
there are aspects which may require inves
FIR at- the threshold itself
opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the resJ
relev ant to n~ that qm
without allowing the investigation to proceed. It w'?uld be
vations on merits and un,
any observation made herein should not be taken as obser
to consider the ~tter
we direct the investigative authority as well as the court
COi
vatio n herei n. . .
on its own merits uninfluenced by any obser
Quashing F.I.R. on groun d of bias .-lt was held in State
v.J~ ~.,Z , ~t G
mation receiv~pM,
a police officer, who recorded the F.I.R. on the basis of infor 111
.
up inves tigation an4 9i u
r~gistered a suspected crime, is competent to take
dice cannot ~
~ report. It was h~ld that from these facts bias or preju ~
depe n~ on, ~~-
b~ inferred for quashing the proceedings. Question of bias
circumstances of each case. . .

h Ra111 #Stat,
~uas h!ng F.I.~ ~n account of dela y.-It was held in Jagdis
ve to be quashed b,,, _
1
0
1 RaJa~than, ~t cnnunal proceedings do not deser mere ly on ac:d)uilt'1f
Court m. exercise of ~ower under Section 482 of the Code
the reasons foi . ,
delay without anything more and without going into
of taking c o ~
particularly when proceedings could not proceed the stage
not a serious one:
because of appellant and the offence of untouchability is
. Quas hing of charg eS.-I ! was held in Central Burea u oj Investig"tioR
d and Others,b that the case w • d ts an'r
Ravi Shank•ar1 Prasa
, d f d' • as against respo nd enthat ma· 'ft;•-"f f•
bank offi c1a s 1or e rau mg ank. It was not Poss1'ble to cone1u e ~~
. 12o-B·re•4:~
on record taken on face value makes out no case d~r Se d ctionth uas1ili'iS of
Section 420, I.P.C. against respondent It was als un
charges against respondents would ~lso have ~ery pomt e. out at_ ~ ...~•oril'·~
seno us reperCUZNN ~
1. 2018 Cr. L.J. 2412 (SC).
2. 2004 Cr. L.J. 1819 (S.C.).
3. 2004 Cr. L.J. 5008 (S.C.).
4. (2009) 3 Cr. L.J. 3437 (S.C.).
 '
MISCELLANEOUS Bro

~~ • ve al re ad
ls . M or eo ve r 92 w itn es se s ha
ed st ag e• Th ere1~ ore, qu as g
he r ba nk of fic ia hi ny
diJ1g cases ag ai ns t. ot w as at an ad va nc
,..yaJ}lined anth d tr ia lt of ca se
pen 0n ~
t
e w as c 1ea r1y ab u~ e of pr oc es s of C ou rt.
ag In sush t•z 5 un. v
i:..n s
;p ro ce e~ gs at a Se ct to n 48 2 Cr p c . -
de r • •
of 1ch ar gell-s he et un ,,
/s M or ep en La bs Lt
d:
Qua sh in g an d ot he r D ire ct or s of M
ed
pe ~ t ou nt an ts Fo rg
CB.l. and Another, ap nc er t w ith ch ar te re d A cc
m co iti on fo r
~re alleged to ha ve pu rc ha se of m ac hi ne ry , a pr e- co nd
to sh ow bu t al so
:o cu m en ts /V ou ch er s 0 . Th ey ha d no t on ly du pe d ba nk in
release of in st al m en ts
~ l~ an
ia tio n on no n- ex is te nt m ac hi ne ry an d
cl au ru ng de pr ec ru pe es . Th e ch ar ge -s
he et
defrauded re ve nu e by eq ue r of C ro re s of
e Pu ~l i~ Ex ch ct io n 120B,
the proc~ss c~ ea te d th of of fe nc es by ap pe lla nt s un de r Se
m nu ss 1o n se cr im in al
prima Jaae, di sc lo se d ~o Pe na l C od e. It w as he ld th at in th is ca du es of
420, 409, 471 of In di
an
t lia bl e to be qu as he d m er el y be ca us e
he et \Vas no
pr oc ee di ng s/ ch ar ge -s . • . .
up
bank have be en pa id m pl ai nt is
ec to r of Po lic e, Ch ennai and others,2 co fo r
In C.P. Subhash v.
Insp
m en ts ha ve be en fo rg ed an d fa br ic at ed
le gi ng th at do cu ca n no t be sa id th at
al le ga tio ns
against re sp on de nt al by co m pl ai na nt . It no t
ow ne d ue st io n w he th er or
illegal claim ov er la nd ut e an of fe nc e. Q
do no t co ns tit offence w as co m m
itt ed by
made in co m pl ai nt en ts · an d w ha t or
respondent • ha s fo rg
ed •• do cu m
ig at io n w hi ch co ul d no t be pr ej ud ge d
at te r fo r in ve st un de r Se ct io n 482, C
r. P. C. or
respondent w as a m er ci se of its po w er ng of
rt in ·ex as he ld th at qu as hi
quashed by H ig h C ou n of In di a. It w
C on st itu tio
under A rti cl e 226 of ' '
•
ju st ifi ed . v. State of
complaint w as un • I
Ch andra Nandial Parikh
ai nt .-I t1 Ra me sh pl ai nt of
Q ua sh in g of compl ai rm ~ of co -o pe ra tiv e Bank. A co m rs an d
w as ch d ot he
1

Gujarat,3 pe tit io ne r· an ce w as fil ed by Bank ag ai ns t hi m an m pl ai nt

misfeasance an d m al
fe as
C. B. I. Th er ea fte r Ba nk filed an ot he r co ed
investigation w as co
nd uc te d by
en t! y se c~ nd _ in ve st ig at io n w as di re ct
d ot he rs . C o~ qu ation w as · cha_llenged to th e
by th e
against pe tit io ne r an re la ~g to m v~ st i~
e or de r is ap pe al
against pe tit io ne r. Th h C ou rt w hi ch w as d1srmssed. H en ce th
petitioner be fo re th e
H ig
ld by th e Su pr em e C ou rt th at th e or de r
ef er re d. It _was h~ e th e tw o se ts
Supreme C ou rt w as pr at io n w as no t liabl~ to be_ qu as he d be ~a us d di ff er en t
st ig s an
directing se co nd in ve d to cases co nc en un g di ff er en t pa rt ie
of co m pl ai nt s pe rt ai
ne
ai ne d of w er e al so in de pe nd en t an d
eo ve r C?_ffences co m pl n.
branches of Bank. M or itt ed no t in th e co ur se of sa m e tra ns ac tio
m m
distinct an d w er e co 4
th e ap pe lla nt ac cu se d Pa rm in de r K au r
State of U.P., . FIR w as
In Parminder Kaur v. da te s in certified co py of re ve nu e re co rd of In di an
al te re d d 471
Was al le ge d to ha ve
of fe nc es un de r se ct ions 420, 467, 468 an on th e pa rt of
n
made ag ai ns t he r for d th at th er e w as no di sh on es t in te nt io d no th in g to
It w as fo un pp el la nt ha
Penal Co de . sh e ha d ac t~d fr au du le nt ly . A ita tio n. N o da m ag e or
nt no r
ac cu se d/ ap pe lla as no t go in g to sa ve
ba r of lim ge s
gain fr om th e sa m e. Sh e w
y bo dy . It w as he ld th at th e sa id ch ar
~e ca us ed to an
injury w as likely to
39 (S.C.).
I. (20l 10 3 Cr . L.J. 29
68 4 (S.C.).
2. (2013) 3 C •
.C .).
3. 20 06 Cr ,
(S.C.).
804 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
• [S. 482
were innocuous and not giving rise to any offences. Therefore prosecuti
complainant was held malicious and vengeanceful. It being abuse of
procon by
court was liable to be quashed under section 482, Cr. P.C.
ess of
In Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another v. D
Switchgear Ltd. and others,1 a comp1amt
. was
mad e for fab ncatin
• •
g false evideutar
and making false statement_ m • w_n~e
• n st at ement f'l d • t chairmannee
1 e ag~s of
Electricity Board and its seruor off1c1als and Board. No specific averm
ent wa
made in the complaint demonstrating role of the chairman in comm
ission 0~
offence. Also there was no averment in compl~~t that the~e was pre-arr
anged
plan between chairman of Board and other officials to fabricate false
evidence.
Thus, complaint did not make out any case against chairman even with
the aid
of section 34 I.P.C. Therefore it was held that complaint was liable
to be
quashed. However as regards Electricity Board, Arbitrator has spelt
out clear
finding and as such complaint against the Board was held not liable
to be
quashed. It was also held that inherent power under section 482,
Cr. P.C.
regarding quashing of complaint has to be exercised sparingly and where
the
complaints or allegations do not make out offence alleged only then this
power
can be exercised.
Quashing of complaint under Section 482, Cr. P.C.- In State
of
Maharashtra and others v. Arun Gulab Gawali and others,2 a complaint was
made
alleging extortion by members of underworld gang. Application was
made by
wife of complainant stating that her husband had been confined
in police
custody, tortured and was forcibly made to sign some papers and lodge
the said
complaint. Persistent stand was taken by complainant and his wife
that
complaint was not made voluntarily. It was held by the Supreme Court
that all
necessary steps had been taken with due diligence and promptness to
ascertain
the correctness of the complaint therefore it cannot be said that such compl
aint
had been made by Ayesha Qureshi under any threat or that the compl
ainant
did not want to support the case of prosecution for some other reasons.
In such
a fact of situation the possibility that the allegation made by Mohd. Qures
hi and
Ayesha Qureshi in their complaint may be true cannot be ruled out. Thus
it was
a fit case, where in order to meet the ends of justice and to preven
t the
miscarriage of criminal justice, the inherent powers of the court to quash
the
FIR/ Complaint could have been exercised.
In Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors.,3 the complainant
complained that accused persons committed offences of theft and hurt
under
Section 323/379 of IPC. The question whether allegations in complaint
prima
facie make out offences alleged against the accused were not examined.
Mere
pendency of civil suit between complainant and accused is not a sufficie
nt
answer to such question. Some further inconsistencies were found
in the
statement of witnesses relating to appreciation of evidence. Therefore,
the High
Court was not correct in going ~oug h these issues at pre-mature
stage
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. As such the order
of the
High Court quashing the complaint was unsustainable under
these
1. (2011) 1 Cr. L.J. 8 (S.C.).
2. (2011) 1 Cr. L.J. 89 (S.C.).
3. A.I.R. 2019 S.C. 1910.
 -
MISCELLANEOUS
80 5

• .
tll11stances. a P ra de sh v. A w adh K/ h G ta,1 th at t!1e
w as h el d in S tate o f Madhy ti o n 482, C r. P .C . ar e zs oryew1"dup e an d re q u ir e
otc o u rt u n d e r S ec v er to st if le
It of th e H ig •
h C
• T h in h p o w e r sh o u ld n o t b e ex er ci se d h
,-,owers . er en ! f St
e~ercISHie._ h eC u rt b em g th e h ig h es t C o u rt o a at e s fa o u ld
~ at caution in it s ti o n . g o fi . se w h er ei n th e cts
·tu na te p ro se cu • • • ~ is io n in a ca
0·_-
alegt fr . fr o m g iv in g a przma ac,e de ce h ~ n o t b ee n co ll ec te
d d
11orzn ally re am en th e. ev id en a l, a ;e
incomplete a n d h
az y , m o re so w h _i nv ol ve d W he rr-er factual o r)eg ie nt
~ su es t su ff ic
e C o u rt a n d th e sp ec ti v e w it h o u
~ u c e ~ before th n o t b e se en m
th ei r tr u e p er
n in re g ar d to ca
se s
a n d ca n e la id do ~v
h a r~ a n d !~t ~
of rnagru tu de e ca n b h in g
f c o ~ se , n o !~ in ar y ju ri sd ic ti on o f q u as
material. O
h C o u rt w il l e~ercISe 1 ~ ex tr ao
ro p er fo r th e H ig h C o u rt to '
in which th~ H ig not be p to
di ng a t a n y st ag e. ~t w o ~ d g h t o f al l pr ob ab il it ie s in o rd er
the procee e co m p la in an t
m th e li re m is es
f th an d o n su ch p
e
analyse th e ca se o n v ic ti o n w o u ld b e su st ai n~ bl u as h ed . It w o u ld b e
h er . a co e to f;,e q
determine w h et n th at th e pr oc ee di
ng s' ar
de th at th e co m p la
in t
co n cl u si o an d co nc lu
arrive at a ef o re it er ci se o f
s to as se ss th e m at er ia l' b g in st it u te d o n co m pl ai nt ,· ex e
errone ou
ce ed ed w it h . In p ro ce ed in ed · fo r o n ly in a ca se w h er e th
cannot be p ro g s is ca ll ss iv e.
p o w er to q u a sh th e p ro ce ed in r is frivolous~ ve xa ti ou s o r o p p re l
inherent
n o t d is cl o se a n y of fe nc e o t .c on st it ut e th e ~ffenc~ o f }YhisJ
complaint d o es o u t in th e co m p la
in t d o n o
en to th e H ig h C o
u rt ' to
ti on s se t e, · it ~ o p
If the al le ga
b ee n ta k en b y th e M ag is tr at
er s ~ d e ~ , S ec ti on 482 ,,,of. tJ:le
cognizance h as h er en t p o w // ,-.
e sa m e in ex er ci se o f th e in , _·, . .
quash th u n d er
e.
, .
,2 a co m pl ai nt w as ',l o d g ed
C od
ay an D asv. St at e o f Karnata
ka
C o d e al le gi ng th ~ t d o cu m en ts
In M . N ar n P en al fi le d
47 0, 47 1 a n d 120-B o f In d ia an d fabricated. 'A . p et it io n \V as
Sections 46 8, nt .
o n d en ts in a su it w er e fo rg ed o u rt fo r q u as h in g th e co m pl ai s
filed b y re sp r. P .C . be fo re th e
H ig h C
e,
iv ol ou
ve xa ti ou s an d fr l '~ e
ec ti on 48 2, C ai nt w as fa ls
under S e co m pl •ap p ea
n cl u d ed th at th re sp on de nt s. In
The H ig h C o u rt co o n m at er ia l p ro d u ce d b y th e ab o v e •ob se rv at io n b u t n o
and is b as ed al
one h C o u rt m ad e __th
e o not
C o u rt h el d th at th e H ig
le g at io ~ m ad e in co m J: > l~ t ?' an
Supreme u rt ~ a t al ti fy in g
lu sion w as d ra w n b y H ig h C o disclose a co gn iz ab le of fe nc e J~ ig h . C o u rt
conc e nor e H
Prima facie co n st
it u te an y of fe nc cer. T he re fo re th e or de r_ o f th , •
th e po li ce of fi
investigat io n b y b e illega l. et w ee n
hing th e co m p la in t w as h el d to er e w er e tw o co nt ra ct s o n e b ct or .
quas 3 th nt ra
at e o f Jharkhand, et w ee n .contractor an d su b- co p al to
In u. D ha r v. St er b p ri n ci
pa l an d co nt ra ct or an d an o th t fo r w o rk . w as m ad e b y the_ r filed a
princi o rk th e p ay m en to su b- co nt ra ct or . S ub -c on tr ac n P en al _ to
m pl et io n o f w
After co o t p ay Section 403 o f
In d ia
h o in tu m d id n
the co nt ra ct or w t ag ai ns t, th e contr~ctor u n ~ er . th e p ay m en t fr o m pr in ci pa l
in ceived
Criminal co m p la th e co nt ra ct or ~ av m g re to hi m . T he co nt ra ct or m o v e th e
d~
th at as ~ u e
Code al le gi ng ed _h is m o n ey as 1t wSection 482 o f Cr. P.C. fo r q u as ed b y
h in g
ap p ro p ri at n ra is
has m is e. H ig h C o u rt u
n d er
m is ap pr op ri at io ff er en t an d
application to th as . h el d . th at th e pl ea o f e di
m pl ai nt . It w be ca us e th e tw o co nt ra ct s ar
co n o t su st ai na bl e
sub-contractor is
- I.
2.
( 200 4) Cr i.L .J.
(2004) Cr i.L ,J.
59 8 (S.C.).
82 2 (S(S.CC.).)
• ••
3. (2 00 3) Cri.L-
806 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

. IS. 4ai
money paid by principal to contractor 1s not mone y or mova
ble
complainant sub-contractor. Hence, there canno t be any misap
pr pr~perty of
P roper ty. It was also point ed out that the dispu te relate d to recove opriatton of
was purely of civil nature. Hence, a crmu • •na1 comp1 • ry of in· oney
amt was not mainta
and was liable to be quashed.
ll\ab}e
In Balkar Singh v. Jagdish Kumar,1 by a complaint accused was
ll
have deterred public servant while he was discharging his duty.
Und~ led. lo
482 such a complaint/F.I.R. could be quash ed only when
Court c ction
conclusion that complaint did not make out triable case.
It was h:: ;10
quashing of complaint by lligh Court merely accepting statem
ent mad ;t
counsel for the State about withdrawal of prosecution was impro
per. e Y
It _was held in Pratibha v. ~meshwari D~i ~nd others,2 that when
allegations
made m an F.LR. do not disclose conuruss1on of any cogniz
able offence
quashing of criminal proceedings by relying on investigation report
s is beyond
hlherent power of the court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. And
direction to
investigating officer to submit report to the High Court instead
of Magistrate is
excess exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code.
It was held in Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatitata Koley etc.,3
that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or ·revisi
onal jurisdiction
under section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code in a case where
complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court
to consider the
defence of the accused or embark upon an inquiry in respec
t of merits of
accusations. That however does not mean that in a criminal case
where trial is
yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summ
ons or taking
cognizance, material relied upon by the accused which are in
the nature of
public document or the materials which are beyond suspicion
or doubt, in no
circumstances can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of
its jurisdiction
under Section 482 or for that matter .in exercise of revisional jurisd
iction under
section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code. In such a matter for
promotion of
justice or to prevent injustice or abuse of process, the High Court
may lo~k ~to
the material which have significant bearing with matter of prime
stage. CriJlUllal
prosecution is a matter which affects the liberty of a person. No
greater damage
can be done to the respondent or a person than 'dragging him in
a crimin~ cas~-
The refusal to ta~e uncon~overted fact_ of resignation of Direct
or whi~ .;
reflected not only m resolution of offending company but is also
duly notifi
to Registrar of Companies for quashing prosecution launched agains
t appellant
Director would lead to gross injustice.
In K. Subba Rao & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.,4 the appellants
filed an
appeal before the High Court for quashing of criminal proceeding
s against the~
invoking Court's inherent power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C.
The accuseof
(appellant) were relatives of husband of complainant charged
for offences t
cruelty and kidnapping. On perusal of evidence on record, the
High cour
1. 2005 Cr. L.J. 1712 (S.C.).
2. (2008) I Cri. L.J. 329 (S.C.).
3. (2011) 2 Cr. L.J. 1626 (S.C.).
4. A.LR. 2018 S.C. 4009.