MADRAS HIGH COURT
Arunachalam, J.
S.D. Ashok Kumar - Petitioner
versus
The State - Respondent
Crl. M.P. Nos. 8989, 8990 & 15798 of 1989
Decided on 19-12-1989

IMPORTANT POINT
If the High Court is convinced that the First Information Report does not disclose a cognizable offence and that the continuation of an investigation, based on no foundation would amount to an abuse of power of police, necessitating interference to secure the ends of justice the inherent power will have to be exercised to quash the FIR.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156 and 482 - Inherent Powers - Exercise of; to quash F.I.R. Pre-requisites - Complaint for the offence u/s. 420 IPC - The First Information Report does not disclose a cognizable offence - Even the material collected during investigation which has reached the stage of drafting the charge sheet, does not disclose a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence - The very manner in which an unusually quick & spontaneous investigation had been commenced portrays an abuse of police power - The power to quash F.I.R. has to be necessarily exercised, for the investigation commenced and pursued lacks bona fides - This is one of the rarest of rare cases, where the liberty of a citizen has to be protected zealously by the Court.

       Held: Normally, at this stage, where a complaint has been made and investigation has just been initiated, it may not be expedient to go into the question of mala fides, put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, certain basic facts, as they appear in the records, will have to be stated. The effect of those material, without adding or subtracting or appreciating the truth or otherwise of such material, if it if possible to conclude that further continuation of investigation, will be an abuse of process of law, such investigation could be quashed and there is no dearth of authority for such a proposition. (Para 13)

       Further Held: Some of the categories of cases where inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings can and should be exercised are:

       (1) Where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, did not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not;

       (2) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged! but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. A clear distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and. cases where there is legal evidence, which on its appreciation, mayor may not, support the accusation in question will have to be borne in mind; and

       (3) Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged.

       It is now fairly settled, that the broad proposition, that the Court can in no case interfere with the investigation of the case, does not appear to be justified. At the same time it admits of no doubt as observed in Nazir Ahmed’ s case, that the power of investigation so far as it vests exclusively in the police or investigating agency is not to be interfered with, by the Courts and the investigating agency should be left to carryon investigation without any interference. This only postulates, that so long as the investigation is in accordance with law, it cannot be interfered with. That does not mean that immunity is given to investigation, which is not in consonance with the relevant provisions of law, governing the particular case. In a nutshell, there cannot be a blanket bar against the quashing of a proceeding at the investigative stage.. If the High Court is convinced that the first information report does not disclose a cognizable offence and that the continuation of an investigation, based on no foundation, would amount to an abuse of power of police, necessitating interference to secure the ends of justice the inherent power will have to be exercised. This statutory power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases, to do real and substantive justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. (Paras 16 & 17)

       Consequently held: - Before going into the arena of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the pre-requisites, for quashing a first information report, a scan of Section 154 Cr.P.C. indicates that.on every information, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, the power of the police to investigate sets in. In a non-cognizable case a police officer is barred from investigating without an order from the Magistrate. Section 156 Cr.P.C. furnishes the power to the Police Officer to investigate a cognizable case, without an order of the Magistrate, but it is confined to the local area within the limits of such station and within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the local area. Section 157 Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that, if, from information received or otherwise; an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate under Section 156 Cr.P.C. he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case……Therefore, the statutory sanction, which can form the foundation for a lawful investigation by the Police will be a reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence. If the information that the police officer does not disclose any cognizable offence, the statutory mandate to commence investigation would be absent and lacking. Even if the First Information Report, which cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia, contains only certain facts; which could genuinely lead to a reasonable belief that a cognizable offence had been committed, the High Court must be slow in exercising its inherent powers to quash the First Information Report and stifle the investigation. In otherwords, even if the First Information report does not come within the ambit straightway of a cognizable offence, if the material collected subsequently disclose; the commission of a cognizable offence, the police cannot be halted in their tracks. If the First Information Repon does not disclose a cognizable offence, the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction, once it is satisfied that even when challenged-the investigating agency, on the basis of all the material collected, was unable to show any reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable - offence, and a patent harassment of the accused was obvious, amounting to clear abuse of power by the police. The salutary inherent power will then have to be necessarily exercised, as other wise the contemplation to secure the ends of justice in Section 482 Cr.P.C. would become a dead letter.

       Result: Petition allowed.