Mehboob-Ur-Rehman (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Sudha Seetharam & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduces the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence. [Paras 11, 12 and 16][191-B, D-E, 193-G]

1.2 The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court. [Para 23][198-D] Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC

736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704 – relied on.

2.1 In the present case, the first respondent has alleged in the complaint that the appellants have committed offences under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants’ son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son. A plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients necessary for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and

420 of the Penal Code are not made out. Thus, the complaint in the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code. [Paras 20 and 21][196-E-F, 197-D]

2.2 In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed. [Para 24]

Binod Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663 : [2014] 11 SCR 85; State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113 – relied on. Rajesh Bajaj v State of NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC

259 : [1999] 1 SCR 1012 – held inapplicable.