IMPORTANT POINT
Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the prayer made by the appellant to quash the FIR in Crime No. 433/2002-2003 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahabubabad, Warangal District registered under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The Petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).

2. In support of the appeals, learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submitted that the High Court’s approach is clearly erroneous. These are not cases where there was no material to show the commission of a crime. Whether there was adequate material already in existence or which could have been collected during investigation and their relevance is essentially a matter of trial The High Court was not therefore justified in quashing the FIR. The exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code is clearly indefensible.

3. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-accused.

4. 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. 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 a liquid aliquot concedit, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa 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 such 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 or 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 complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

5. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1 (AIR 1960 SC 866) this Court summarized some c