INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATPATNA
CRIMINALMISCELLANEOUSNo.6978of2015
ArisingOutofComplaintCaseNo.-132CYear-2013Thana-WESTCHAMPARAN
COMPLAINTDistrict-WestChamparan
1.ShaukatAli,SonofLateSadikMian.
2.FirozMianSonofShaukatAli.
3.NasirAlamSonofShaukatAli.
4.AftabAlamSonofShaukatAli.
5.ShahrukhHussainSonofShaukatAli.
AllresidentsofVillage-Gaunaha,P.S.-Gaunaha,District-West
Champaran.
6.QyumMianSonofLatifMian,residentofVillage-SemariDumari,P.S.-
Gaunaha,District-WestChamparan.
7.AlimMianSonofLateJainulMian,ResidentofVillage-Chatiya,P.S.-
Malahi,District-EastChamparan.
……Petitioner/s
Versus
1.TheStateofBihar
[email protected]@Md.MahmoodAlam,
residentofVillage-Santpur,Pipra,P.S.-Mainatand,District-West
Champaran.
……OppositeParty/s
Appearance:
ForthePetitioner/s:Mr.UmeshChandraVerma,Advocate
FortheState:Mr.Md.Arif,APP
CORAM:HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEAHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORALJUDGMENT
Date:17-05-2019
Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitionersandlearned
APPfortheState.
2.Despiteserviceofnoticeonoppositepartyno.2,
nobodyappearedwhenthecasewastakenupandheard.
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
2/9
3.ThepetitionershavemovedtheCourtunderSection
482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(hereinafterreferred
toasthe’Code’)forthefollowingrelief:
“Thatthisisanapplicationforquashing
theorderdated28.05.2014passedbySriP.K.
Shukla,thelearnedJudicialMagistrate,1stClass,
Bettiah,WestChamparan,inTrialNo.3099of2014
arisingoutofComplaintCaseNo.132-Cof2013,
wherebyandwhereunderthepetitionerswere
summonedtofacetrialfortheoffencesunder
Sectionsection379oftheIndianPenalCode(IPC).”
4.Theoppositepartyno.2hadfiledComplaintCase
No.132(C)of2013againstthepetitionersallegingthattheywere
armedwithcountrymadepistol,knives,dabiyaandironrodwhich
wasusedtointimidatetheoppositepartyno.2andhisfatherand
onsuchthreat,Rs.2,500/-incash,mobileworthRs.4,600/-,cash
Rs.1,300/-wristwatchworthRs.1,100/-andbagcontaining
ornamentsandclothesworthRs.75,000/-wastakenawaybythe
accused.Itwasfurtherallegedthatwhileretreatingthepetitioner
no.3gavethreateningandopenedfire.
5.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerssubmittedthatthe
presentcaseisaclassicexampleofmisuseandabuseofthe
processoftheCourt.Itwassubmittedthatthecomplaintalso
suffersfromsuppressionofmaterialfactswhichexposesthemala
fidebehindfilingofsuchcomplaint.Itwassubmittedthatthe
oppositepartyno.2istheson-in-lawofthepetitionerno.1and
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
3/9
thedaughterofthepetitionerno.1hadearlierfiledComplaint
CaseNo.1854-Cof2012on08.08.2012againsttheopposite
partyno.2andhisfamilymembersunderSections323,Section498A,
Section504oftheIndianPenalCodeand3/4oftheSectionDowryProhibition
Act.Itwassubmittedthatinthesaidcase,afterenquiry,summons
havebeenissuedagainsttheaccused.Learnedcounselsubmitted
thatasacounterblasttothesaidcase,thepresentcomplaintcase
hasbeenfiledon11.1.2013.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatthe
malafideintentiononthepartoftheoppositepartyno.2would
beexposedbythefactofhimbeingtheson-in-lawofthe
petitionerno.1,beingmarriedtohisdaughter,hasnotevenbeen
whisperedintheentirecomplaintcase,and,thus,theopposite
partyno.2hastriedtoplaysmartevenwiththeCourtby
suppressinghiscloserelationshipwiththeaccusedasalsothefact
thatmuchpriortofilingofthepresentcase,heandhisfamily
memberswerealreadyaccusedinacomplaintcasefiledbyhis
wifei.e.,thedaughterofpetitionerno.1.Learnedcounsel
submittedthatthestoryasnarratedinthecomplaint,ofthe
accusedpointingknivesontheabdomen,pistolattheheadand
dabiyaattheneckisnotonlyunbelievablebutactuallycomical.It
wassubmittedthatsuchallegationisonlyforthepurposeof
sensationalisinganddramatizinganoccurrencewhichnevertook
place.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatevenotherwise,whenthe
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
4/9
oppositepartyno.2andhisfamilymembers,includinghisfather,
wereaccusedinthecomplaintcasefiledbythedaughterofthe
petitionerno.1,muchpriortothecomplaintcase,therecould
havebeenabsolutelynooccasionforthemtocommitsuchcrime
knowingfullywellthattheywouldbeidentifiedandalso
prosecuted.Learnedcounselsubmittedthatbysuchsuppression
ofvitalfactonthepartoftheoppositepartyno.2,hehasnot
cometotheCourtwithcleanhands.Itwassubmittedthatthe
basicrequirementofanypersonapproachinganyCourtoflawis
toapproachtheforumwithcleanhandsafterplacingallfacts
whichareknowntohimandthepresentfactofbeingsoclosely
relatedtotheaccusedbeingintheknowledgeoftheopposite
partyno.2andnotevenbeingindicatedintheentirecomplaint
case,clearlyshowsthathehasnotapproachedtheCourtwith
cleanhandsandonthisgroundalone,thepresentapplication
deservestoallowedandactionagainsttheoppositepartyno.2is
alsorequiredforsuchmisconduct.Itwassubmittedthatinthe
aforesaidbackground,thecomplaintcasefiledbytheopposite
partyno.2isclearlyanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourt.
6.LearnedAPPfairlysubmittedthatinviewofthefacts
broughtonrecordintheapplicationandasnoticedbytheCourt,
thepresentcaseappearstobetotallywithoutanyiotaof
truthfulness.
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
5/9
7.Havingconsideredthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
caseandsubmissionsoflearnedcounselfortheparties,theCourt
findsthatacaseforinterferencehasbeenmadeout.
8.Atthisjuncture,theCourtdeemsitworthwhileto
quoteparagraphsno.23to26ofthejudgmentpassedin
AshutoshMukherjeev.TheStateofBihar[Cr.Misc.No.
47012of2014,judgmentdated18-04-2019],whichreadas
under:
“23.SectionInJitendraRaghuvanshiv.BabitaRaghuvanshi
reportedas(2013)4SCC58,theHon’bleSupremeCourtin
paragraphno.14opined:
“14.TheinherentpowersoftheHighCourtunder
Section482oftheCodearewideandunfettered…”
(emphasissupplied)
24.SectionInParbatbhaiAahirv.StateofGujarat
reportedas(2017)9SCC641,theHon’bleSupremeCourt,
atparagraphsno.11,16.1and16.4held:
“11.Section482isprefacedwithan
overridingprovision.Thestatutesavesthe
inherentpoweroftheHighCourt,asasuperior
court,tomakesuchordersasarenecessary(i)
topreventanabuseoftheprocessofanycourt;
or(ii)otherwisetosecuretheendsofjustice…
xxxx16.1Section482preservestheinherent
powersoftheHighCourttopreventanabuseof
theprocessofanycourtortosecuretheendsof
justice.Theprovisiondoesnotconfernew
powers.Itonlyrecognisesandpreservespowers
whichinhereintheHighCourt.
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
6/9
xxxx
16.4.Whiletheinherentpowerofthe
HighCourthasawideambitandplenitudeithas
tobeexercised(i)tosecuretheendsofjustice,or
(ii)topreventanabuseoftheprocessofany
court.”(emphasissupplied)
25.Itwouldbepertinenttopointoutobservationsof
thisCourtinSectionRupeshKumarv.TheStateofBihar[Cr.
Misc.No.30470of2016,orderdated21.02.2019]at
paragraphsno.9and15:
“9.Fromtheaforesaid,itis
abundantlyclearthatthisCourthasaninherent
dutytoensurethatwheneveritcomesacross
materialswhichjustifyaparticularcourseof
action,itshouldnotshyawayfromdischarging
itsconstitutionalobligations…
xxxx
15…Moreover,everyCourtof
extraordinaryjurisdiction,moresoa
ConstitutionalCourt,liketheHighCourt,hasan
inherentoriginalpowervestedinit,where,for
securingtheendsofjustice,certainexerciseof
power,ifrequired,mayberesortedto.Such
extraordinarypowercannotbecurtailed,except
thatitbeinvokedinnecessarycircumstances.”
(emphasissupplied)
26.TheHighCourt,beingaConstitutionalCourt,retains
enormousandinherentpowerstoactintheinterestofjustice.
Sufficeitwould,tostatethatanylimitationwhatsoeverin
exerciseofsuchpower,wouldbeself-imposed,basedonthe
Court’sdiscretion,havingdueregardtothepeculiarfactsand
circumstancesofthecase.UnderSection482oftheCode,
theHighCourtonlyexercisestheextraordinarypowersit
possessesbyvirtueofthefactthatitisaHighCourt.Section
482oftheCodebeginswithanon-obstanteclauseand,as
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
7/9
such,theHighCourt’sinterminablejurisdictioncannotbe
fetteredorwhittleddown.”
9.TheHon’bleSupremeCourtinSectionStateofHaryanavs.
BhajanLal,reportedas1992Supp(1)SCC335,atparagraph
no.102hasenumeratedcategorieswheretheCourtwould
exerciseitsinherentpowerunderSection482oftheCode.The
samereadsasunder:
“102.Inthebackdropoftheinterpretationof
thevariousrelevantprovisionsSectionoftheCodeunderChapter
XIVandoftheprinciplesoflawenunciatedbythisCourtin
aseriousofdecisionsrelatingtotheexerciseofthe
extraordinarypowerunderSectionArticle226ortheinherent
powersunderSection482oftheCodewhichwehave
extractedandreproducedabove,wegivethefollowing
categoriesofcasesbywayofillustrationwhereinsuch
powercouldbeexercisedeithertopreventabuseofthe
processofanycourtorotherwisetosecuretheendsof
justice,thoughitmaynotbepossibletolaydownany
precise,clearlydefinedandsufficientlychannelisedand
inflexibleguidelinesorrigidformulaeandtogivean
exhaustivelistofmyriadkindsofcaseswhereinsuchpower
shouldbeexercised.
(1)Wheretheallegationsmadeinthefirst
informationreportorthecomplaint,eveniftheyare
takenattheirfacevalueandacceptedintheirentirety
donotprimafacieconstituteanyoffenceormakeouta
caseagainsttheaccused.
(2)Wheretheallegationsinthefirst
informationreportandothermaterials,ifany,
accompanyingtheFIRdonotdiscloseacognizable
offence,justifyinganinvestigationbypoliceofficers
underSection156(1)SectionoftheCodeexceptunderan
orderofaMagistratewithinthepurviewofSection
155(2)oftheCode.
(3)Wheretheuncontrovertedallegations
madeintheFIRorcomplaintandtheevidence
collectedinsupportofthesamedonotdisclosethe
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
8/9
commissionofanyoffenceandmakeoutacase
againsttheaccused.
(4)Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonot
constituteacognizableoffencebutconstituteonlya
non-cognizableoffence,noinvestigationispermitted
byapoliceofficerwithoutanorderofaMagistrateas
contemplatedunderSection155(2)oftheCode.
(5)WheretheallegationsmadeintheFIR
orcomplaintaresoabsurdandinherentlyimprobable
onthebasisofwhichnoprudentpersoncaneverreach
ajustconclusionthatthereissufficientgroundfor
proceedingagainsttheaccused.
(6)Wherethereisanexpresslegalbar
engraftedinanyoftheprovisionsSectionoftheCodeorthe
concernedAct(underwhichacriminalproceedingis
instituted)totheinstitutionandcontinuanceofthe
proceedingsand/orwherethereisaspecificprovision
inSectiontheCodeortheconcernedAct,providingefficacious
redressforthegrievanceoftheaggrievedparty.
(7)Whereacriminalproceedingis
manifestlyattendedwithmalafideand/orwherethe
proceedingismaliciouslyinstitutedwithanulterior
motiveforwreakingvengeanceontheaccusedand
withaviewtospitehimduetoprivateandpersonal
grudge.”
10.Thepresentcase,intheopinionoftheCourt,is
coveredundercategories5and7oftheaforesaiddecisionin
BhajanLal(supra)atparagraphno.102.
11.Similarly,theHon’bleSupremeCourtinSectionStateof
Karnatakav.L.Muniswamy,reportedas(1977)2SCC699,at
paragraphno.7,hasobservedasfollows:
“7……….Intheexerciseofthis
wholesomepower,theHighCourtisentitledto
quashaproceedingifitcomestotheconclusionthat
allowingtheproceedingtocontinuewouldbean
abuseoftheprocessoftheCourtorthattheendsof
justicerequirethattheproceedingoughttobe
quashed.ThesavingoftheHighCourt’sinherent
PatnaHighCourtCR.MISC.No.6978of2015dt.17-05-2019
9/9powers,bothincivilandcriminalmatters,is
designedtoachieveasalutarypublicpurposewhich
isthataCourtproceedingoughtnottobepermitted
todegenerateintoaweaponofharassmentor
persecution.Inacriminalcase,theveiledobject
behindalameprosecution,theverynatureofthe
materialonwhichthestructureoftheprosecution
restsandthelikewouldjustifytheHighCourtin
quashingtheproceedingintheinterestof
justice……”
12.Intheaforesaidbackground,theCourtfindsthatthe
presentcomplaintcaseistotallymalicious,filedwithmalafide
intention,forwreakingvengeanceandtoharassthepetitioners
and,thus,isanabuseoftheprocessoftheCourt.
13.Accordingly,theapplicationisallowed.Theentire
criminalproceedingrelatingtoComplaintCaseNo.132(C)of
2013,includingtheorderdated28.05.2014,bywhichcognizance
hasbeentakenandsummonsissuedtothepetitionersbytheCourt
belowatBettiahinthedistrictofWestChamparan,stands
quashed.
(AhsanuddinAmanullah,J.)
P.Kumar
AFR/NAFRAFR
U
T