2005 Supreme(SC) 1565

2005(8) Supreme 464
Supreme Court of India
(From Orissa High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
State of Orissa & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Saroj Kumar Sahoo —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1639 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3190/2004)
And
Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3199/2004)
Decided on 7-12-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, A. Ramesh and Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Jana Kalyan Das, Advocate.

Important Point
Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in section itself.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of FIR registered for offences u/s 120(B), 420, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, by High Court in exercise of inherent power—Respondent as Chairman cum Managing Trustee applied for establishment of a new Polytechnic with approval of AICTE though trust was not having requisite land of 20 acres and funds to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs—Approval for running technical education institution was accorded on the alleged false declarations and forged documents—Criminal proceedings against accused who was member of Committee of Chief Engineers which granted renewal of license which was submitted after due date for having acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources were also quashed—Appeal—Exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of such nature was an exception and not the rule—Inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly—When exercising power, High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether evidence in question was reliable or not—Allegations of mala fides against informant are of no consequence and cannot be a basis for quashing the proceedings—Certain conclusions arrived by High Court were fallacious—High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the cases.

       Held : Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. (Para 8)

       Learned Single Judges did not keep in view the correct position in law while allowing the petitions filed by the respondents. It baffles us as to how a learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could even direct grant of renewal of licence. It is somewhat akin to a learned Single Judge of another High Court directing creation of criminal courts to deal with cases under a particular statute. It is baffling how learned Single Judge referred to submissions purportedly made by learned counsel for Bichitranand who was not even a party. It is not clear how such submissions if any could be made. The conclusions are based on surmises and conjectures without any material to support them. Learned Single Judge arrived at certain conclusions which are utterly fallacious. It is not clear as to on what basis such conclusions were arrived at. Some of the conclusions, by way of illustration are given below:

       (a) No work experience certificate is taken as criteria for issue of fresh license.

       (b) Renewal of license after three years is an automatic process.

       (c) Educational qualification of Managing Director is not a criteria for issuance of Special Class Contractor, when the allegation was of filing false/forged educational qualification certificate.

       (d) Bichitrananda did not influence any member of the Committee of Chief Engineers though he was a member (This conclusion was arrived at purportedly on the basis of Bichitrananda’s submission, though he was not a party).

       The grant of relief to Bichitranand when he was not a party is equally indefensible. Therefore, we find no reason to accept the plea of learned counsel for the respondents that he should be heard in these proceedings. When the factual position of the case at hand is considered in the light of principles of law highlighted, the inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case and the charge sheet filed. (Paras 15 and 16)