SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Indrajeet Singhaniya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 11 July, 2018

1
MCRC No.24839/2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC No.24839/2018
(Indrajeet Singhaniya Anr. vs. State of M.P. Anr.)

Gwalior, Dated : 11.07.2018
Shri Narottam Sharma, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pramod Pachauri, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.296/2018 registered
by Police Station Civil Lines, Morena for offence under
Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.
The applicant No.1 is the husband of the complainant
whereas the applicant No.2 is the brother-in-law of the
complainant.
According to the prosecution case, the
complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a report on 21.5.2018
at about 22:00 to the effect that she is married to the
applicant No.1, who used to beat her after consuming
liquor, as a result of which she went to her parental house.
On 19.5.2018, she went to her matrimonial home along
with the applicant No.1 and on 20.5.2018 the applicants
abused her. When the complainant reported this incident to
her father then her parents came to her matrimonial house.
Around 5:00 PM, the applicants started abusing the
complainant and when the complainant objected to it then
both the applicants by catching hold from her scalp hair
started assaulting her, as a result of which she sustained
various injuries. It is submitted by the counsel for the
applicants that the complainant has lodged the report with
malafide intentions. The applicant No.1 has filed a petition
2
MCRC No.24839/2018

under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of
Conjugal Rights and only after receiving the notices of the
said proceedings, the false FIR has been lodged. It is
further submitted that only husband and brother-in-law
have been falsely implicated in the matter because the
applicant Non.1 is working in District Balrampur
(Chhatishgarh) whereas the applicant No.2 is working and
posted at Bhayandar, District Thane (Maharashtra). It is
further submitted that the applicants have been falsely
implicated.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the applicants.
Before considering the submissions made by the
counsel for the parties, it would be necessary to consider
the scope of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court in the case of Padal Venkata
Rama Reddy Vs. Koveuri Satyanarayana Reddy
reported in (2011) 12 SCC 437 has held as under:
“8. Section 482 of the Code deals with
inherent power of the High Court. It is
under Chapter 37 of the Code titled
“Miscellaneous” which reads as under:
“482. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court.–Nothing in this Code shall be
deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to
prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.”
This section* was added by the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of
1923 as the High Courts were unable to
render complete justice even if in a given
3
MCRC No.24839/2018

case the illegality was palpable and
apparent. This section envisages three
circumstances in which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely:
1. to give effect to any order under CrPC,
2. to prevent abuse of the process of any
court,
3. to secure the ends of justice.
9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR
1960 SC 866 this Court laid down the
following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of
criminal proceedings against an accused
may amount to the abuse of the process
of the court or that the quashing of the
impugned proceedings would secure the
ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that
there is a legal bar against the institution
or continuance of the said proceeding
e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the first
information report or the complaint taken
at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not constitute the offence
alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an
offence alleged but there is either no
legal evidence adduced or evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
10. In State of Karnataka v. L.
Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 this Court
has held as under: (SCC p. 703, para 7)
“7. … In the exercise of this wholesome
power, the High Court is entitled to quash
a proceeding if 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 saving of the High Court’s inherent
powers, both in civil and criminal
4
MCRC No.24839/2018

matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment
or persecution. In a criminal case, the
veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which
the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice
has got to be administered according to
laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper
realisation of the object and purpose of
the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do
justice between the State and its
subjects, it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that
salient jurisdiction.”
11. Though the High Court has inherent
power and its scope is very wide, it is a
rule of practice that it will only be
exercised in exceptional cases. Section
482 is a sort of reminder to the High
Courts that they are not merely courts of
law, but also courts of justice and
possess inherent powers to remove
injustice. The inherent power of the High
Court is an inalienable attribute of the
position it holds with respect to the
courts subordinate to it. These powers
are partly administrative and partly
judicial. They are necessarily judicial
when they are exercisable with respect to
a judicial order and for securing the ends
of justice. The jurisdiction under Section
482 is discretionary, therefore the High
Court may refuse to exercise the
discretion if a party has not approached it
with clean hands.
5
MCRC No.24839/2018

12. In a proceeding under Section 482,
the High Court will not enter into any
finding of facts, particularly, when the
matter has been concluded by concurrent
finding of facts of the two courts below.
Inherent powers under Section 482
include powers to quash FIR,
investigation or any criminal proceedings
pending before the High Court or any
court subordinate to it and are of wide
magnitude and ramification. Such powers
can be exercised to secure ends of
justice, prevent abuse of the process of
any court and to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any
order under this Code, depending upon
the facts of a given case. The Court can
always take note of any miscarriage of
justice and prevent the same by
exercising its powers under Section 482
of the Code. These powers are neither
limited nor curtailed by any other
provisions of the Code. However, such
inherent powers are to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution.
13. It is well settled that the inherent
powers under Section 482 can be
exercised only when no other remedy is
available to the litigant and not in a
situation where a specific remedy is
provided by the statute. It cannot be
used if it is inconsistent with specific
provisions provided under the Code (vide
Kavita v. State 2000 Cri LJ 315 and B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC
675). If an effective alternative remedy
is available, the High Court will not
exercise its powers under this section,
specially when the applicant may not
have availed of that remedy.
14. The inherent power is to be exercised
ex debito justitiae, to do real and
substantial justice, for administration of
which alone courts exist. Wherever any
6
MCRC No.24839/2018

attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the Court has
power to prevent the abuse. It is,
however, not necessary that at this stage
there should be a meticulous analysis of
the case before the trial to find out
whether the case ends in conviction or
acquittal. (Vide Dhanalakshmi v. R.
Prasanna Kumar 1990 Supp SCC 686;
Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa
(1995) 4 SCC 41 and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122.)
15. It is neither feasible nor
practicable to lay down exhaustively as to
on what ground the jurisdiction of the
High Court under Section 482 of the Code
should be exercised. But some attempts
have been made in that behalf in some of
the decisions of this Court vide State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
(1992) 4 SCC 305, Rupan Deol Bajaj v.
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194
and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
(2006) 6 SCC 736.

******

18. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar
Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540 it has been
held that probabilities of the prosecution
version cannot be analysed at this stage.
Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of
the informant are of secondary
importance. The relevant passage reads
thus: (SCC p. 550, para 11)
“11. … It would not be proper for the
High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities
in order to determine whether a
conviction would be sustainable and on
such premises arrive at a conclusion that
7
MCRC No.24839/2018

the proceedings are to be quashed. It
would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the
complaint cannot be proceeded with.”

19. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988)
1 SCC 692 this Court held as under: (SCC
p. 695, para 7)
“7. The legal position is well settled that
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. It is also for
the court to take into consideration any
special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is
expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is
so on the basis that the court cannot be
utilised for any oblique purpose and where
in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and,
therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be
served by allowing a criminal prosecution
to continue, the court may while taking
into consideration the special facts of a
case also quash the proceeding even
though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

20. This Court, while reconsidering the
judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia
(1988) 1 SCC 692, has consistently
observed that where matters are also of
civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family
disputes, etc., the Court may consider
“special facts”, “special features” and
quash the criminal proceedings to
encourage genuine settlement of disputes
between the parties.

21. The said judgment in Madhavrao
case (1988) 1 SCC 692 was reconsidered
and explained by this Court in State of
Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC
222 which reads as under: (SCC p. 271,
8
MCRC No.24839/2018

para 70)
“70. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1
SCC 692 also does not help the
respondents. In that case the allegations
constituted civil wrong as the trustees
created tenancy of trust property to
favour the third party. A private complaint
was laid for the offence under Section 467
read with Section 34 and Section 120-B
IPC which the High Court refused to
quash under Section 482. This Court
allowed the appeal and quashed the
proceedings on the ground that even on
its own contentions in the complaint, it
would be a case of breach of trust or a
civil wrong but no ingredients of criminal
offence were made out. On those facts
and also due to the relation of the settler,
the mother, the appellant and his wife, as
the son and daughter-in-law, this Court
interfered and allowed the appeal. …
Therefore, the ratio therein is of no
assistance to the facts in this case. It
cannot be considered that this Court laid
down as a proposition of law that in every
case the court would examine at the
preliminary stage whether there would be
ultimate chances of conviction on the
basis of allegation and exercise of the
power under Section 482 or Article 226 to
quash the proceedings or the charge-
sheet.”

22. Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia (1988) 1 SCC 692 does
not lay down a law of universal
application. Even as per the law laid down
therein, the Court cannot examine the
facts/evidence, etc. in every case to find
out as to whether there is sufficient
material on the basis of which the case
would end in conviction. The ratio of
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia (1988) 1
SCC 692 is applicable in cases where the
9
MCRC No.24839/2018

Court finds that the dispute involved
therein is predominantly civil in nature
and that the parties should be given a
chance to reach a compromise e.g.
matrimonial, property and family
disputes, etc. etc. The superior courts
have been given inherent powers to
prevent the abuse of the process of court;
where the Court finds that the ends of
justice may be met by quashing the
proceedings, it may quash the
proceedings, as the end of achieving
justice is higher than the end of merely
following the law. It is not necessary for
the Court to hold a full-fledged inquiry or
to appreciate the evidence, collected by
the investigating agency to find out
whether the case would end in conviction
or acquittal”.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v.
Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 has
held as under :

“8. It is true that the inherent powers
vested in the High Court under Section
482 of the Code are very wide.

Nevertheless, inherent powers do not
confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High
Court to act according to whims or
caprice. This extraordinary power has to
be exercised sparingly with
circumspection and as far as possible, for
extraordinary cases, where allegations in
the complaint or the first information
report, taken on its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged. It needs
little emphasis that unless a case of gross
abuse of power is made out against those
in charge of investigation, the High Court
should be loath to interfere at the
early/premature stage of investigation.

10

MCRC No.24839/2018

9. In State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar
Guha, emphasising that the Court will not
normally interfere with an investigation
and will permit the inquiry into the
alleged offence, to be completed, this
Court highlighted the necessity of a
proper investigation observing thus: (SCC
pp. 597-98, paras 65-66)
“65. … An investigation is carried on for
the purpose of gathering necessary
materials for establishing and proving an
offence which is disclosed. When an
offence is disclosed, a proper
investigation in the interests of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials
for establishing the offence, and for
bringing the offender to book. In the
absence of a proper investigation in a
case where an offence is disclosed, the
offender may succeed in escaping from
the consequences and the offender may
go unpunished to the detriment of the
cause of justice and the society at large.
Justice requires that a person who
commits an offence has to be brought to
book and must be punished for the same.
If the court interferes with the proper
investigation in a case where an offence
has been disclosed, the offence will go
unpunished to the serious detriment of
the welfare of the society and the cause
of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of
this principle that the court normally does
not interfere with the investigation of a
case where an offence has been disclosed.

66. Whether an offence has been
disclosed or not must necessarily depend
on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. … If on a consideration of
the relevant materials, the court is
satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the
court will normally not interfere with the
investigation into the offence and will
11
MCRC No.24839/2018

generally allow the investigation into the
offence to be completed for collecting
materials for proving the offence.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. On a similar issue under
consideration, in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v.
State of W.B.4, while explaining the scope
and ambit of the inherent powers of the
High Court under Section 482 of the
Code, one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) speaking
for the Bench, has observed as follows:
(SCC p. 251, para 20)
“20. … The section itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i)
to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the
ends of justice. Nevertheless, it is neither
possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule which would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the
court. Undoubtedly, the power possessed
by the High Court under the said provision
is very wide but it is not unlimited. It has
to be exercised sparingly, carefully and
cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real
and substantial justice for which alone the
court exists. It needs little emphasis that
the inherent jurisdiction does not confer
an arbitrary power on the High Court to
act according to whim or caprice. The
power exists to prevent abuse of authority
and not to produce injustice.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Vinod
Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora, reported in (2013) 10
SCC 581 has held as under :

“30. It is a settled legal proposition that
while considering the case for quashing of
the criminal proceedings the court should
not “kill a stillborn child”, and appropriate
12
MCRC No.24839/2018

prosecution should not be stifled unless
there are compelling circumstances to do
so. An investigation should not be shut
out at the threshold if the allegations have
some substance. When a prosecution at
the initial stage is to be quashed, the test
to be applied by the court is whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made,
prima facie establish the offence. At this
stage neither can the court embark upon
an inquiry, whether the allegations in the
complaint are likely to be established by
evidence nor should the court judge the
probability, reliability or genuineness of
the allegations made therein.”

The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa
vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi Ors. reported in
AIR 1976 SC 1947 has held as under:-

“6. …….. The High Court appears to have
gone into the whole history of the case,
examined the merits of the evidence, the
contradictions and what it called the
improbabilities and after a detailed
discussion not only of the materials
produced before the Magistrate but also of
the documents which had been filed by the
defence and which should not have been
looked into at the stage when the matter
was pending under Section 202, has held
that the order of the Magistrate was illegal
and was fit to be quashed…..

7. For these reasons, therefore, we are
satisfied that the order of the High Court
suffers from a serious legal infirmity and
the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction
in interfering in revision by quashing the
order of the Magistrate. We, therefore,
allow the appeal, set aside the order of the
High Court dated December 16, 1975 and
restore the order of the Magistrate issuing
process against respondents No.1 and 2.”

Furthermore, it is well established principle of law that
13
MCRC No.24839/2018

that the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. K.M.
Sharan reported in (2008) 4 SCC 471 has held as
under:-

“31. At this stage, the High Court in
its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
was not called upon to embark upon
the inquiry whether the allegations in
the FIR and the charge-sheet were
reliable or not and thereupon to
render definite finding about
truthfulness or veracity of the
allegations. These are matters which
can be examined only by the court
concerned after the entire material is
produced before it on a thorough
investigation and evidence is led.

32. In the impugned judgment,
according to the settled legal position,
the High Court ought to have critically
examined whether the allegations
made in the first information report
and the charge-sheet taken on their
face value and accepted in their
entirety would prima facie constitute
an offence for making out a case
against the accused (the respondent
herein).”

Thus, it is clear that when the entire allegations are
accepted on their face value, and if they do not disclose the
commission of offence, only then this Court in exercise of
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the
proceedings. It is well established principle of law that the
legitimate prosecution should not be stiffled in the mid way.

The submissions made by the counsel for the
applicants are highly disputed question of fact and even if
all the allegations which have been made are accepted to
be true and even thereafter if no offence is made out, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the correctness of
14
MCRC No.24839/2018

the allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.2
against the applicants cannot be considered at the stage of
exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

It is contended by the counsel for the applicants that
the FIR has been lodged by way of counterblast to the
proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha vs.
Rameshwari Devi Ors. reported in 2007(12) SCC 369
has held as under:

“16. It is pertinent to note that the
complaint was filed only when all efforts to
return to the matrimonial home had failed
and Respondent 2 husband had filed a
divorce petition under Section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart, in
our view, filing of a divorce petition in a
civil court cannot be a ground to quash
criminal proceedings under Section 482 of
the Code as it is well settled that criminal
and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil
proceeding cannot bring to an end a
criminal proceeding even if they arise out
of the same set of facts. Such being the
position, we are, therefore, of the view
that the High Court while exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Code has
gone beyond the allegations made in the
FIR and has acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court
was not justified in quashing the FIR by
going beyond the allegations made in the
FIR or by relying on extraneous
considerations.”

It is well established principles of law that the findings
given by the Civil Court are not binding on the criminal
Court. Thus, if the applicants have filed an application
under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, then the FIR cannot
15
MCRC No.24839/2018

be quashed merely on the ground that it might have been
lodged by way of counterblast.

It is further submitted that the complainant has
deliberately implicated the applicants because the applicant
No.1 is posted in the State of Chhatishgarh and the
applicant No.2 is posted in the State of Maharashtra so that
they are compelled to come to Morena to attend the
proceedings.

The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari Vs.
Sanjay Kumar and Others reported in (2008) 12 SCC
346 has held as under:-

“9. ……When an information is
lodged at the police station and an
offence is registered, then the mala
fides of the informant would be of
secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the
investigation and evidence led in the
court which decides the fate of the
accused person. The allegations of
mala fides against the informant are
of no consequence and cannot by
themselves be the basis for quashing
the proceedings”. [See Dhanalakshmi
v. R. Prasanna Kumar (1990 Supp
SCC 686), State of Bihar v. P.P.

Sharma (1992 Supp (1) SCC 222),
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill (1995(6) SCC 194) , State of
Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999(2) SCC

651), State of U.P. v. O.P.

Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi
Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997
(2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999 (8) SCC

728) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi (1999 (3) SCC 259)].”

Thus, it is clear that where the FIR discloses the
16
MCRC No.24839/2018

commission of cognizable offence, the malafides of the
informant becomes secondary. Furthermore, whether the
FIR has been lodged malaifdely or it is the correct narration
of facts, is a highly disputed question of fact which can be
decided only after recording of the witnesses in the trial.

So far as the contention of the counsel for the
applicants that the applicants have been deliberately
implicated is concerned, again it is a highly disputed
question of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

Thus it is clear, that this Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot adjudicate upon the
correctness of the allegations. The entire allegations are to
be treated as correct and only thereafter if the Court comes
to a conclusion that no offence is made out, the
proceedings can be quashed. In the present case, if the
allegations are taken on their face value, then it is clear
that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of
cognizable offence and the submissions made by the
counsel for the applicants are their defence, which has to
be proved in the Trial.

Under these circumstances, the FIR in Crime
No.296/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Morena
for offence under Sections 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC cannot
be quashed.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2018.07.13 14:55:10 +05’30’ (G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh