Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. , (SC) BS145626
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dalveer Bhandari and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2008 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3743/2007]. D/d. 20.8.2008.

Gorige Pentaiah - Appellant

Versus

State of A.P. & Others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- S. Sharma and Anil Kumar Tandale, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- L.N. Gupta and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates.

A. Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) - Complaint filed by a number of Scheduled caste that accused abused him with the name of his caste - It was not stated in the complaint that accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view - Basic ingredients of offence were missing in the complaint - Complaint quashed.

[Paras 6 and 29]

B. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code - Scope of Power of High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code explained - Inherent power may be exercised :-

(1) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(3) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

(4) Wholesome power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code entitles the High Court to quash a proceedings when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed - The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

(5) When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. 1988(1) RCR (Criminal) 565 (SC) relied.

(6) Power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends or justice. 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 762 (SC) relied.

(7) Inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice - If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court.

[Paras 12, 15, 16, 20 24 and 28]

Cases Referred :-

Connelly v. DPP [1964] AC 1254.

DPP v. Humphrys [1977] AC 1.

R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866.

State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977)2 SCC 699.

Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982)1 SCC 466.

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, 1988(1) RCR (Criminal) 565 : (1988)1 SCC 692.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335.

Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992)4 SCC 305.

G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 : (2000)2 SCC 636.

Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 762 : (2000)8 SCC 590.

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 937 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 74 : (2005) 1 SCC 122.

Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 740 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 637 : (2006) 6 SCC 736.

Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 548 : 2007(5) RAJ 451 .

ORDER

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under :

Sd/- B.Eswar

(Bakara Eswar) S/o Rajaiah

Peerjadiguda Village,

Ghatkesar Mandal, RR District."

3. The appellant aggrieved by registration of the criminal case, invoked inherent powers of the court by filing a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court for quashing of the proceedings emanating from Crime No. 281 of 2004 Police Station Uppal, Hyderabad. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006, dismissed the said petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by the High Court, present appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint are taken as true, even then, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. As far as Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, it reads as under :

6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No. 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

7. Similarly, we find that the ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are totally absent in the complaint.

8. In the complaint it is not even mentioned that the accused had intimidated or threatened the complainant or any one else. In absence of basic ingredients of the section in the complaint, no case under section 506 Indian Penal Code can be sustained.

Section 506 reads as under :

9. It may be pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 3 had filed Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 832 of 2004 for perpetual injunction against appellant on 14.5.2004. The suit was withdrawn on 19.7.2004 on the ground "that due to personal problems the plaintiffs are not interested to continue the proceedings against the defendants as such they intends to withdraw the above as not pressed".

10. Respondent No. 3 also filed a second suit bearing O.S. No. 1211 of 2004 in the month of July, 2004 with the following prayer :

The details of the scheduled property are as under:

11. On careful consideration of the prayer made in the second suit, it becomes abundantly clear that respondent No. 3 was not even in possession of the suit property on the date of incident and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh. When respondent No. 3 was not even in possession of the land in question, the allegation made in the complaint, that the appellant demolished the wall on 14.6.2004, could not arise. The allegations are totally baseless and without any foundation. On the face of it, it looks that the criminal complaint filed by the respondent No. 3 was totally false and frivolous. The complaint was filed with an oblique motive. In this view of the matter, charges under sections 427 and 447 are also wholly illegal and unsustainable in law.

In our considered view, in a case of this nature, the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and quashed the complaint.

Scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code

12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised :

13. Inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.

Discussion of decided cases

14. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In Connelly v. DPP [1964] AC 1254, Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial. Lord Salmon in DPP v. Humphrys [1977] AC 1 stressed the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is oppressive and vexatious that the judge has the power to intervene. He further mentioned that the court's power to prevent such abuse is of great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.

15. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 866, this court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings :

16. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

17. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others, (1977)2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.

18. In Chandrapal Singh & Others v. Maharaj Singh & Another, (1982)1 SCC 466, in a landlord and tenant matter where criminal proceedings had been initiated, this Court observed in para 1 at page 467 as under :-

19. The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.

20. This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others, 1988(1) RCR (Criminal) 565 : (1988)1 SCC 692 observed in para 7 as under :

21. In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, this court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised :

22. This court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary & Others, (1992)4 SCC 305 observed thus :

23. In G. Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 : (2000)2 SCC 636, this court observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.

24. This court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 762 : (2000)8 SCC 590 observed thus :-

25. This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 937 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 74 : (2005)1 SCC 122 observed thus :-

26. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 740 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 637 : (2006)6 SCC 736, this court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The court noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The court further observed that "any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

27. The question before us is - whether the case of the appellants comes under any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) ? Is it a case where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not make out a case against the accused under sections 420, 467 and 120B Indian Penal Code ? For determination of the question it becomes relevant to note the nature of the offences alleged against the appellants, the ingredients of the offences and the averments made in the FIR/complaint.

28. A three judge Bench of this court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 548 : 2007(5) RAJ 451 has examined scope and ambit of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court in the said case observed that inherent powers under section 482 should be exercised for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers of the court.

29. In our considered opinion, filing of such a frivolous complaint in the instant case is a total abuse of process of law. Consequently, we set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and quash the complaint emanating from Crime No. 281 of 2004, Police Station, Uppal, Hyderabad.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Appeal allowed.