The court emphasized the need to exercise inherent powers sparingly and with circumspection when quashing criminal proceedings, as established in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal.

Maithli Sharan, J.

1. The applicants have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, invoking its inherent powers, and praying for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 204 of 1999 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna.

2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case runs thus : A charge-sheet against the applicants was filed for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna. The case of the prosecution was that the applicant No. 1, Vijay Kumar Dighe, was the 'Mukhya Prabandhak' of State Bank of Indore, Branch Guna, and the applicant No. 2, R.D. Joshi, was the 'Prabandhak' of the said Bank. One Raghvendra Sharan Gupta, an employee of the said Bank, died on 7-7-98 in Civil Hospital, Guna. The doctor of the Civil Hospital, Guna, informed the police that said R.S. Gupta had died due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. The statements of his father Mahendra Pal Gupta, his wife Smt. Deepa Gupta and his brother Avadhesh Sharan Gupta were recorded by the police; their statements revealed that said R.S. Gupta had committed suicide, and, therefore, a Crime No. 55 of 1999 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants. The prosecution case is that the statements of the father, wife and brother of the deceased had revealed that the applicants had forcibly pressed said R.S. Gupta to work in Advance Cash Branch and on account of tension he had committed suicide. After completing the investigation of the case the charge-sheet was filed by the Police in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Government Advocate on admission, at length, and have perused the documents filed by the applicants.

4. Undisputedly, Shri R.S. Gupta was the employee in the State Bank of Indore where the applicants were working as 'Mukhya Prabandhak' and 'Prabandhak' respectively, and further that the former had committed suicide on 7-7-98. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently submitted that the false, concocted and baseless case has been made out against the applicants, and that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. Looking to the first information report and the statements of the father, wife and brother of the deceased R.S. Gupta, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation, I find that a cognizable offence, prima-facie, is made out. In view of this position the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants do not hold any field for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is settled legal position that interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a criminal proceeding should be done very sparingly and only in exceptional cases. In the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1992 SC 604, it has been laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has further been held that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Courts.

5. Thus, in view of the above settled legal position the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the first information report and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the instant case, cannot be looked into by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.