1) Vijayander Kumar & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr
2) State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]
3) Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 259]
4) Hamid v. Rashid alias Rasheed & Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 474]
5) Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 705]
6) State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540]
7) Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors.[(1992) 3 SCC 317]
8) Kailsah Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr. [(2005) 2 SCC 571]
9) Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2008 (9) SCALE 166]
10) Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296]
11) Sham Sunder & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 630]
12) Radhey Shyam Khemka & Anr. v. State of Bihar [(1993) 3 SCC 54]
13) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi [(2003) 5 SCC 257]
14) Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. [(2007) 7 SCC 373]
15) Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited
16) R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors
It is relevant to extract paragraph 11 of the judgment which runs as follows:
“11.There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta is attracted, which are as under:
“(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”
7. The legal principles in regard to quashing of a First Information Report in view of a large number of decisions rendered by this Court are now almost well settled.
8. We may notice some of them :
In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335], it was held :
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the 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 extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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 of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. ....
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. ....
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
2) State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335]
3) Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. [(1999) 3 SCC 259]
4) Hamid v. Rashid alias Rasheed & Ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 474]
5) Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors. [(2008) 2 SCC 705]
6) State of Orissa & Anr. v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [(2005) 13 SCC 540]
7) Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors.[(1992) 3 SCC 317]
8) Kailsah Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr. [(2005) 2 SCC 571]
9) Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2008 (9) SCALE 166]
10) Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police [(2006) 7 SCC 296]
11) Sham Sunder & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 630]
12) Radhey Shyam Khemka & Anr. v. State of Bihar [(1993) 3 SCC 54]
13) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi [(2003) 5 SCC 257]
14) Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. [(2007) 7 SCC 373]
15) Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited
16) R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2004
VIJAYANDER KUMAR & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VS.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
“11.There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta is attracted, which are as under:
“(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.”
.............
12. Learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint discloses a criminal offence or not. This proposition is supported by several judgments of this Court as noted in paragraph 16 of judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka and Another vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners Private Limited.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5672 of 2004)
R. Kalyani ... Appellant
Versus
Janak C. Mehta & Ors. ... Respondents
8. We may notice some of them :
In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335], it was held :
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the 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 extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though 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 of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4. ....
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. ....
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
Comments
Post a Comment