Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu & Anr. vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

HELD : 1.1 The High Court concluded, and rightly, that it was open to the Appellants to adduce evidence to show that the Appellants and/or one of the them was not present at the time of the alleged offence. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Paras 11, 12] [806-D-E]

1.2 The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. For interference under Section 482, three conditions are to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the trial Judge. [Paras 13-16] [806-E-H; 807-A-B]

1.3 The High Court may have an obligation to intervene under Section 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error has been committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despite the fact that the alleged acts did not at all constitute offences. However, while exercising powers under this Section, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. The power under Section 482 of CrPC should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if the basic ingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC. It is well settled that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open to the High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code, to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. The inherent power under Section 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Code. [Paras 17-19] [807-C-G]

1.4 In this case, the High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal complaint, observing that it can exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC only in rare cases. The power to quash the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted as true. The High Court in effect found, and rightly, that the allegations in the complaint coupled with the statements recorded by the Magistrate had the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections 307, 323, 427,

447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings. [Paras 23, 24] [810-C-E]

S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Another (2002) 1 SCC 241 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 397 ; S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. M.A.A. Annamali v. State of Karnataka and Another (2010) 8 SCC 524 : [2010]

9 SCR 1124 ; Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1754 : [1977] 2 SCR 357 ; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 123 ; Dharampal

and Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1361 : [1993] 1 SCR 1 – referred to.

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 : [2004]

5 Suppl. SCR 790 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ;

Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others (1990) Supp SCC 686 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 165 ; State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others (1977) 2 SCC

699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113 – relied on.