The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with circumspection to prevent abuse of process of court, and the exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice.

ORDER :

Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The applicant has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR No. 455/2020 registered by Police Station Dehat, Hoshangabad against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354A, 354D of IPC and section 3(1) (W) (i), 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that due to some animosity with the husband of the complainant in respect of some demand of money regarding maintenance of the residential society, the complainant with a revengeful mentality lodged a false and fabricated report against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the applicant also filed some complaint against the husband of the complainant regarding illegal recovery but no action thereon was taken by the authority.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 opposed the application stating that the applicant did not comply with the direction issued by this court on 02.12.2020 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 5521/2020 whereby this court while dismissing the application for anticipatory bail granted liberty, as prayed, to the applicant to surrender before the Arresting officer to co-operate in the investigation. Hence it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed.

4. Learned panel lawyer appearing for the State has also opposed the prayer for quashment of FIR stating that applicant has a right to raise the ground which can be taken in defence at the stage of defence during trial.

5. Heard rival submission of the parties and perused the case diary.

6. The issues raised by the applicant cannot be evaluated and appreciated at this stage. At this stage this court has only to see whether the F.I.R. discloses the ingredients of the offence or not. Even at this stage, it is also not necessary that there must be sufficient evidence to convict the applicant.

7. The scope of section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been discussed by the Apex court in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 extensively. The relevant paras are reproduced herein:-

"10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have a thorough look at Section 482 CrPC, which reads:

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers 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.

A bare perusal of Section 482 CrPC makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard-and-fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straitjacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC and how cautious and careful the approach of the courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgment, which reads: (SCC p. 272, para 2)

2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the chargesheet quashed is an exception rather than a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as the rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution.