• No results found

VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT:

In document 498a Cases (Page 101-104)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the High Courts can quash an FIR against a person if it did not prima facie disclose any offence. A two judge bench said that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused must be tried and taken to logical conclusions under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the High Courts should be reluctant to interfere into the proceedings at an interlocutory stage.

"However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed", the bench said. Where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the accompanying documents taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to be saved, ruled the bench.

In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ( 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) :

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail the provisions of section 482 and the power of the high court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by high courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

1. The criminal complaint can be quashed when allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused person.

2. The criminal complaint can be quashed when allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for continuing the proceedings against the accused person.

3. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the allegations made in the complaint and evidence collected in support of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused person.

4. The criminal complaint can be quashed when the complaint is manifestly attended with malafide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused person and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

5. The criminal complaint can be quashed when there is an express legal bar under any of the provisions of the CrPC or any other legislation (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of criminal complaint.

Thus, if the high court is convinced that the criminal complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence and the continuation of an investigation is not based on sound foundations and would amount to an abuse of power of the police necessitating interference to secure the ends of justice, the high court will exercise its inherent power to quash the proceedings.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (AIR 1998 SC 128) : the Supreme Court of India observed that:

“Though the magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charges to be groundless, this does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under section 482 to have the complaint quashed if the complaint does disclose the commission of a cognizable offence against the accused person. In this case the Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court refusing to quash the complaint on the ground that alternate remedy was available under the CrPC to the accused person was not proper.”

However it has been held by the Supreme Court of India in Om Prakash Singh v. State of UP (2004 CrLJ 3567) : That ‘if a complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to quash the criminal complaint’.

In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 ) :

A petition under section 482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by common judgments allowed the petition and quashed the two complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to Supreme Court of India.

While deciding the appeal, the Supreme Court of India laid down following principles:

1. The high courts should not exercise their inherent powers to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the alleged offence.

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a) purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence.

As the nature and scope of civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

View of the High Courts :

In Pasupati Banerji v. King (AIR 1950 cal 97) :

The court has observed that “In order to attract the provisions of section 182 of the IPC, it must be established that the person gave information to a public servant which he knew or believed to be false and that he intended thereby to cause the public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. It is not sufficient that the person had reasons to believe it was false or that he did not believe it to be true; what is necessary that the person must have positive knowledge or belief that it was false.”

In state of maharashtra v mohd yusuf noormohammad and others [1990 CrLJ 2106 (bom)] :

The high court held that, in the interest of peace, the right of an individual to prosecute his complaint may be curtailed by the high court under section 482.

CONCLUSION :

So as per the following report we have seen that how the high courts uses its inherent powers and how important it is for the high courts to use these powers. Section 482 has a very wide scope and its really important for the courts to use it properly and wisely.

Many a times it has been observed that when there is an issue of money for eg. Any money matter then the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit files an FIR against the other person just to harass him. In such cases it becomes very important for the high courts to quash such complaints as it leads to the abuse of the process of the lower courts.

Thus section 482 is very important for acquiring proper justice and to stop the public from filing fictitious complaints just to fulfill there personal grudges.

Example:

Not sure if people are already aware of this, but DP4 can be quashed in Bihar/ Jharkhand if a prior sanction of state government/ officer appointment by Government has not been taken before initiating process under DP4. This is because of amendment introduced by Bihar Government in 1976 through "Bihar Act 4 of 1976". This is also applicable in Jharkhand because Jharkhand has de facto considered all acts of Bihar after its separation

until it passes any new amendment to this effect.

Refer below judgement to this effect from Jharkhand highcourt. It also refers to some

supreme court judgement which I am not able to trace as of now. If anybody gets a hand

on it, please share in the group.

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1439411/

So if anyone has DP4 going on against them where above mentioned sanction has not been taken then the person can go for quash of DP4 on this ground.

You might also like:

Most Asked Questions - court procedure/terms.

498a Arrest - New Amendment Interpretation/Directions by UP HC

Is PWDVA a disaster or catastrophic ?

Right to Bail In India -

Why women can be included in PWDVA complaint ? According to madurai bench of Madras HC.

the B* back.

In document 498a Cases (Page 101-104)