Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charges are only applicable in rare and extraordinary circumstances, not merely based on administrative directives.

ORDER

The above case was filed as a Criminal Miscellaneous Case with a prayer to quash Annexure-7 court charge in C.C.No.4/2018 of the Special Court (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram. The Registry noted a defect indicating that a Revision Petition is the proper remedy, since the prayer was to quash the court charge. Upon hearing of the defect, this Court relegated consideration of the defect later, on condition that the maintainability of the Crl.M.C. will be addressed first. Accordingly, Crl.M.C. was numbered and heard today (29.10.2024).

2. Sri.R.Anil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that filing a Crl.M.C under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash a court charge is not a complete taboo; instead, the same would be justified in exceptional circumstances. Learned counsel relied upon two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court namely, 1)Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar and Others [ (1994) 4 SCC 142 ]; 2)Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation [ (2018) 16 SCC 299 ].

3. This Court notice that in Minakshi Bala (supra), in paragraph no.7, the Honourable Supreme Court held that once the charges are framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C by the High Court, the High Court will not justified in invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash such charge, except in those rare cases, where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. To the same effect is the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (supra). In paragraph no.37, the Honourable Supreme Court held that a challenge to an order of charge should be entertained only in a rarest of rare case, to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate the matter.

4. In the light of the above proposition of law laid down, this Court will now ascertain whether the case at hand is a rare one, justifying invocation of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Three points were pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The first is based on Annexure-4 letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary dated 07.05.2011, directing indicating that no further action need to be taken against the petitioner, since the loan has already been cleared. In page no.76 of the paper book, another letter issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Director, V.A.C.B, Thiruvananthapuram is also produced, which indicates that no review is required on the Government decision to drop action against the petitioner. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the filing of the Final Report contrary to such instructions from the Additional Chief Secretary, is bad in law.

5. This Court cannot appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. No provision of law could be pointed out as regards any power justifying such exercise of power by the Additional Chief Secretary to take a decision in respect of a criminal case registered, pursuant to the orders of the Special Court, in a private complaint. In the instant case, the direction is to drop all further action, since the loan has already been cleared. The said direction is neither legal, nor logical. If a loan is availed through an illegal means or with a corrupt motive, which makes out an offence prima facie, the proceedings against the perpetrator is not liable to be closed for the solitary reason that such loan has been closed. That apart, there is complete lack of power for the Additional Chief Secretary to give instructions to the Director, V.A.C.B. to drop actions against the accused in a criminal case. It is the matter exclusively coming within the domain of the Special Court, as to whether a direction to register F.I.R. has to be issued on a private complaint, or as to whether a Final Report preferred pursuant to such investigation has to be accepted or not. Therefore, the contention based on Ext.A4 is rejected in toto.

6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on a reference to 're-inv