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 tests specifically laid down in section itself.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Petition to quash FIR registered by appellant for offences u/s 120-B, 167, 168, 177A IPC and u/s 13(2) and 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on ground that CBI had no jurisdiction to register the FIR under Delhi Special Police Establishment Act — High Court accepted the stand holding that consent necessary by concerned State for operation of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act had been withdrawn and that for authorised officers to function under the Act it was necessary that officers were required to be individually notified and general notification would not suffice — Appeal — Exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is exception and not a rule — Circumstances under which inherent power may be exercised — High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether evidence in question was reliable or not — Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion — Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where entire facts are incomplete and lazy — Consent of State Govt. to extend the Act in State given in 1956 was extended in 1989 — No notification revoking earlier notification — A letter on which emphasis was laid would not meet requirement of Article 166 of the Constitution — High Court was not justified in holding that there was a notification rescinding earlier notification and was not justified in quashing the proceedings.
       Held : Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code 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 Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (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.(Para 6)
       When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.(Para 8)
       Coming to the pivotal stand of respondent no.1, as has been rightly submitted by leaned counsel for the appellant, there is no notification revoking the earlier notification. The letter on which great emphasis has been laid by the respondent No.1 and highlighted by the High Court, the authority to write the letter has not been indicated. It has also not been established that the person was authorized to take a decision. In any event, the same does not meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even conceptually a notification. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that there was a notification rescinding earlier notification. (Para 11)
       The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) questions legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Respondent No.1, a member of Indian Administrative Service filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) for quashing the FIR registered by the appellant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 168, 177A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). The only ground on which the respondent no.1 prayed for quashing the FIR is that the CBI had no jurisdiction to register the FIR under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (in short the Act). FIR was registered by Shri Rajiv Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Jaipur at the Police Station, CBI on the information received through some sources as in regard to certain advertisements involving criminal conspiracy resulting in the commission of offences noted above.

2. Respondent no.1 filed the petition before the High Court questioning legality of the proceedings.

3. With reference to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act, the respondent No.1 took the stand that the CBI had no jurisdiction to register the case. In substance the stands were: (a) consent necessary by the concerned State for operation of the Act had been withdrawn as is evident from the letter dated 26.6.1999 of the Special Officer (Home), Secretary, Department in response to the letter dated 21.11.1989 written by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi. (b) consent of the State Government which was given in 1956 was extended in 1989 after the PC Act was promulgated but subsequently the State Government had not considered it appropriate to accord consent to extend some provisions of the Act to the whole of the State of Rajasthan, (c) though the consent had been given by the State of Rajasthan in 1956 and extended in 1989, same did not relate to any particular officer to act in terms of the Act and, therefore, the FIR as lodged had no validity in the eye of law. The High Court accepted the stands. It held that the consent was earlier given in 1956 and extended in 1989 after the Act was enacted. The same became inoperative after the State Government refused to accord consent for extending the same provisions of the Act to the whole of Rajasthan. It was also held that for the authorized officers to function under the Act it was necessary that the officers were required to be individually notified and a general notification would not suffice.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court has committed patent errors in law. First, prayer of the respondent No. 1 could not have been adjudicated in a petition instituted under Section 482 of the Code. Secondly, the High Court has lost sight of the fact that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act had not been rescinded or revoked at any point of time. Further an inter departmental communication has been treated as a notification to hold that the State Government had not extended the notification. The authority of the person who wrote that letter has not been established. In any event, the same cannot be treated to be one covered under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). Thirdly, there was no specific order required in respect of each officer as has been held in various decision of this Court.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that when the proceeding itself was void ab initio the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR. Further, there is no material on record to show that the consent which was given in 1956 and extended in 1989 was intended to be continued.

6. The rival contentions need careful consideration.

Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 721

IMPORTANT POINTInherent 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 tests specifically laid down in section itself.

Cases Referred (13)

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 tests specifically laid down in section itself.