The legal principle established is that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can be justified when there is no legal evidence connecting the accused to the crimes, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

MAITHILI SHARON, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

( 2 ) THE brief relevant facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are thus: Police Chanderi filed a charge sheet in the Court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 457, 380, and 411, I. P. C. against nine persons, out of whom the petitioners and one Suresh Kumar were shown as absconding. The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28-7-99 took cognizance of the case and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking itsinherent jurisdiction u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. , with the allegation that factually there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect them with the crimes in question, and the only evidence lurking in the charge-sheet against them is contained in a confessional statement u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act made by one of the co-accused Tahir Ali. On this basis it has been prayed that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate be quashed as against the petitioners.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides and have carefully gone through the relevant papers available on record.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the absence of any legal evidence against the petitioners collected by the police during investigation no cognizance could have been taken against them. From the side of the State reply has been filed and the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has contended that the co-accused Tahir Ali has given relevant information under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the complicity of the petitioners with the offence u/s. 411, I. P. C. Besides, the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate has also raised a preliminary objection that since charge has not been framed as yet in the case by the trial Court, hence, the criminal proceedings pending in the trial Court could not be quashed at this juncture.

( 5 ) TAKING the preliminary objection raised by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate first, suffice it to say that there is no bar whatsoever regarding the invoking of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. It is true that inherent power of the Court has to be exercised sparingly and only for securing the ends of justice, but on this premise it cannot be said that merely because the petitioners have a right to raise objection and plead at the time of framing of the charge that there is no sufficient material for framing of any charge against them, they should be debarred from approaching this Court, at an earlier opportunity of time when the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned them to appear in the Court. I am of the view that under the circumstances when there appears absolutely nothing on record against the accused, there would be no justification in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue as, obviously, this approach by itself would tantamount to an abuse of the process of the Court, and certainly under these circumstances the power u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. can be exercised. My view is fortified by the view taken by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Chaturvedi v. Shitul H. Chanchani in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1704 : (1998 Cri LJ 4091 ). Thus, I am afraid, I do not agree with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Dy. Govt. Advocate.

( 6 ) SO far as the merit of this case is concerned, the State itself has admitted in the reply filed by it that the only evidence against the petitioners is to be found in the statement of co-accused Tahir Ali recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. I am of the view that the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are appended by way of a proviso to Section 26 dealing with the confession of an accused while in police custody, which has no evidentiary value. Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act carving out a proviso to Sec. 26 deals with a fact depo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document