IMPORTANT POINT
Where criminal complaint appeared to be a sheer abuse of process of law, it was liable to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 482-Petition to quash criminal proceedings-Exercise of power is exception and not rule-Three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction may be exercised-Not possible or desirable to lay down an inflexible rule which would govern exercise of power-Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion.
       Held : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar (1990 Supp SCC 686), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 309), Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (AIR 1999 SC 1044), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (AIR 1996 SC 2983) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3) SCC 259. (Para 10)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 418-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 469 and 473-Cognizance of offence in a private complaint-Petition to quash complaint and proceedings dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Complaint allegations that instead of being appointed as Area Manager for which post complainant was interviewed, he was appointed as Field Officer-Factual position disclosed that complainant had not come to Court with clean hands and there was no explanation for inaction between 1995 and 2001-High Court erred in holding that complaint was not hit by limitation-Complaint was an abuse of process of law where power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should have been exercised-Impugned order was liable to be set aside and proceedings before Magistrate were liable to be quashed. (Paras 12 and 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court holding that the issuance of summons to the appellants by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in complaint case No. 1613 (C) of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 is proper.

Factual background in nutshell is as follows:

3. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant ) filed a complaint on 9.8.2002 alleging that the appellants had committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). The date of occurrence was indicated to be between 12.7.1995 to 8.5.2002. The basic allegations in the complaint were that an advertisement was issued by the appellant No. 1 seeking applications for appointment to the post of Area Manager. The complainant, who was then working in another concern applied for the post, was called to the interview on 14.7.1995 and was asked to report at the Bombay office of the appellant No. 1-company on 1.8.1995 for training. After completion of the training period the complainant was asked to report to the Patna depot. He was given appointment from 9.9.1995 by letter dated 1.9.1995 wherein it was indicated that he was appointed as Field Officer and not Area Manager. According to the respondent, on receipt of the appointment letter the complainant asked the concerned officials i.e. the other accused persons as to how he was being appointed as Field Officer when he had appeared at the interview for the post of Area Manager. He was assured that the letter for the post of Area Manager will be issued in the first week of April, 1996. But no such letter came to be issued and he was not appointed as Area Manager. Grievance was, therefore, made that the accused persons had initially deceived him by appointing as Field Officer and not as Area Manager, though he was assured that the appointment letter in that regard will be issued. Therefore, they were liable to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 409 IPC.

4. Statement of complainant was recorded on 13.2.2002. By order dated 8.10.2002 the learned Judicial Magistrate held that sufficient material existed to proceed under Section 418 IPC against the appellants and, therefore, summons were issued for their appearance. An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) was filed before the High Court challenging legality of the order and summons. It was, inter alia, submitted that complaint was mis-conceived; the complainant had not come to Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. It was stated that the complainant had filed a Title Suit No. 178/2002 before the learned Sub-Judge claiming his transfer order was mala fide. The prayer for interim protection was rejected. Case No. 11/99 has been filed before the Labour Court in which complainant claimed certain payments and compensation. There was no grievance made of any cheating neither in the civil suit nor in the matter pending before the Labour Court. The complaint was stale, and in any event, beyond the prescribed period of limitation as provided in Section 468 of the Code. It was pointed out that there was no proof of the complainant having resigned from his previous employment. There was no material to show commission of any offence even if complaint petition is considered in its entirety. No foundation for proceeding under Section 418 of the Code was made out. For the first time in 2002 the alleged breaches were agitated. Stand of the complainant on the other hand was that finally his claim was rejected on 15.12.2001 and subsequently his services were terminated on 29.4.2002. That being so, the plea of complainant having been filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be maintained. The petition was, as noted above, rejected by the High Court.

5. In support of the appeal, Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1380

IMPORTANT POINTWhere criminal complaint appeared to be a sheer abuse of process of law, it was liable to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where criminal complaint appeared to be a sheer abuse of process of law, it was liable to be quashed in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.