A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to fulfill their obligations under the contract.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 55 of 1943), by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court (Criminal Revision Side) (October 24, 1941).

The question raised in this appeal was whether the High Court had power, under s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all proceedings taken in pursuance of two first information reports made to the police.

One Saleh made a first information report to the police at Lahore on August 31, 1941, making allegations of criminal offences committed by the respondent while acting as special official receiver of property in which Saleh had an interest. On September 5, 1941, Saleh made a further report, again making allegations of criminal offences committed by the respondent. Investigations on the charges were made by the police until September 10, 1941, on which date all investigations were stayed by an interim order made by Beckett J. on a petition by the respondent praying that all investigations under the two first information reports be quashed under the inherent power of the High Court as provided by s. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that " Nothing in this " Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of " the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to " give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse " of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends " of justice."

In 1939, Saleh had filed a petition for the removal of the respondent from the office of receivership, the petition containing substantially the same charges as those that were made in the two first information reports. That petition was dismissed by a order of the Subordinate Judge, Lahore, dated July 17, 1939, and an appeal from that order to the High Court at Lahore was dismissed on April 4, 1940, the judge holding that the charges were baseless and should never have been alleged.

The petition of the respondent was heard by the High Court at Lahore (Criminal Revision Side) (Blacker and Sale JJ.) on October 24, 1941, when they held that the High Court had inherent power to quash all proceedings taken by the police in pursuance of the two first information reports, and that the circumstances were such as justified them in exercising the inherent power. They said, inter alia, " We have examined the " first information reports and the proceedings of the police “investigation and we find that all the charges now made are " the same as those already adjudicated on by the “civil courts..... We consider .... that it would be an " abuse of the process of the court to allow such charges to be " resuscitated, and in order to prevent such an abuse, we " consider that in the" particular circumstances of this case " it is necessary to pass an order under s. 561A that the " proceedings should be quashed.” They accordingly ordered that all proceedings taken in pursuance of the reports made by Saleh to the police should be quashed.

1944. July 17. Roberts K.C., Wallach and B. MacKenna for the appellant. The High Court has no inherent power, and no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the investigation by the police of criminal charges, and the order appealed against was made without jurisdiction. The offences alleged in the first information reports amounted, it is submitted, to an allegation of cheating within s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and to an allegation of criminal breach of trust by a public servant under

s. 409 of that Code. Those are both cognizable offences ; the police can arrest without warrant, and it follows from that, under s. 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the police are given the right of investigating, and " investigation " is defined in s. 4, sub-s. 1 (I) of the Criminal Procedure Code as including " all the proceedings " under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a " police officer . . . . " There is nothing in the Code to prevent the police from investigating an alleged offence under s. 4