Holding

Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, shields public servants acting in good faith, and the proceedings were an abuse of process, thus they must be quashed.

Summary

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU, inspected a business premises and later faced a criminal complaint alleging forcible seizure of books and extortion under IPC sections 448, 380, 384 and 506. The complaint was challenged on the ground that Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with Section 197 of the CrPC, barred prosecution of public servants acting in good faith. The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the proceedings, prompting an appeal. The Supreme Court held that Section 37, like Section 197 CrPC, provides protection to officers for acts done honestly and in the discharge of official duties, and that the complaint was an abuse of process. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, affords protection to a public servant for acts done in good faith, analogous to Section 197 CrPC.
Whether the criminal complaint under IPC sections 448, 380, 384 and 506 constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashment under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the lack of prior sanction and the six‑month limitation under Section 37 bars the prosecution.
Interpretation of ‘good faith’ under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957s. 27, s. 28, s. 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197, s. 482
General Clauses Act, 1897
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 380, s. 384, s. 448, s. 506

Subjects

good faithSection 37Section 197abuse of processCrPC Section 482General Sales Tax Actpublic servant protectionvexatious prosecutioninspection powersIndian Penal Code

Judgment

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 608

A GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU '+,....
v.
STATE OF A.P. AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1342 of 2008)
AUGUST 25, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ] t·
Andhra Pradesh Genera.I Sa/es Tax Act, 1957 - s.37 -
c Protection to public official for act done in good faith - Scope
and ambit of uls.37 - Held: S.37 of the Act like s.197 CrPC
aims at preventing vexatious prosecution and proceedings
against public servants - S. 37 of the Act affords protection to
officers in respect of act done in "good faith" in course of ex-
p ecution of duties imposed or discharge of functions entrusted
by or under the Act - Anything done with due care and atten-
tion which is not malafide is presumed to have been done in
good faith - On facts, criminal proceedings instituted by
assessee's father against the Asstt: Commissioner, alleging .4

that pursuant to inspection of business premises, he did not
E issue receipt in evidence of seizure, was nothing but abuse of
the process of law - Hence such proceedings liable to be
quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 197 and
482 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 448, 380, 384 and 506.

F Words and Phrases - "good faith" - Meaning of, in the
context of - General Clauses Act, 1897. f-·
Appellant, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, carried out inspection of the premises owned by
Respondent No.2 and used by his son for his proprietary
G business.
Three months after the date of inspection, Respon-
dent No.2 filed complaint for alleged commission of of-
fences punishable under ss.448, 380, 384 and 506 of IPC
. H 608
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 609
OF A.P. & ANR.

'"-+" before the Judicial Magistrate, stating that Appellant had A
forcibly taken away bill books, cheque books, records and
also Indira Vikas Patras(IVPs) worth Rs.2 lacs without giv-
ing any acknowledgement and had also forcibly taken
signatures of his son on white papers with intention to
extract Rs.3 lacs. The complaint was referred to police, B
which filed report stating that the complaint itself was
-4· false. However, the police report was objected to by Re-
spondent No.2 according to whom it was wrong, incor-
rect and without proper investigation. The Magistrate took
cognizance of such objection and issued notice and pro- c
cess to Appellant and his subordinates and asked them
to appear for trial.
Appellant contended before the Magistrate that the
complaint itself was false and in any case process ought
not to have been issued since there was specific bar con- D
--,J. tained under s.37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales
Tax Act, 1957 read with s.197 of CrPC. Subsequently he
' ,
filed a petition under s.482 CrPC before the High Court
praying for quashing of the proceedings pending against
him before the Magistrate. The petition was dismissed. E
Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. S.197 CrPC provides for protection to public

. ---\
servants in discharge of official duties. S.37 of the Andhra F
Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 like s.197 CrPC aims
at preventing vexatious prosecution and proceedings
against public servants. S.37 of the Act puts embargo on
institution of suits, prosecution or other proceedings
against any officer or any servant of the State Government
G
for any act done or purported to be done under the Act
without previous sanction of the State Government. There
is a further embargo i.e. no such suit, prosecution or pro-
ceed\ng shall be instituted after the expiry of six months
from the date·of the act complained of. Sub-section (2) af-
H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A fords protection .to the officer referred to above in respect -~-
ofan act if the same was done in good faith in the course
of execution of duties imposed or the discharge of func-
tions entrusted by or under the Act. "Good faith" accord-
ing to the definition in General Clauses Act means a thing,
B which is in fact done honestly whether it is done negli-:
gently or not. Anything done with due care and attention f.~
which is not malafide is presumed to have been done in
good faith. [Paras, 6,7,8,9,10] [619-D, 618-F-H, 619-A-C]
H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia
· C Bahadur of Gwalior etc. Vs. Union of India and Anr. 1971 (1)
SCC 85 and Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan Vs. Ram
. Krishan Govind Bhanu and Ors. (1959 SCR 564) - relied on
Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006
D (1) SCC 557) - referred to
2. In Bhajan Lal's case, this Court listed categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein inherent powers un-
der s.482 CrPC could be exercised ei~her to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
E ends of justice. In the present case, as the factual sce-
nario goes to show, the proceedings were nothing but
abuse of the process of law. In view of what is stated in
s:37 of the Act and the ratio in Bhajan Lal's case, the pro-
ceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate stand
F quashed. [Paras 12, 13 & 14] [620-H, 621-B-C,622-E-F]
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992
Supp. (1) sec 335) - relied on.
Case Law Reference
G 1911 (1) sec 85 relied on Para 8
1959 SCR 564) relied on Para 9
c2006 (1) sec 557) referred to Para 11
(1992 Supp. (1) sec 335) relied on Para 12
H Dr: ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 611
OF A.P. & ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned A
Single Judge of the-Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing
the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). The
prayer was to quash the proceedings before learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karimnagar in CC No.356/ B
96.
3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are
as follows:
The appellant, at the relevant time in 1994, i.e. c
24.10.1994, was working as Assistant Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes. He alongwith his subordinate staff went to
the business premises· belonging to the respondent no.2 for
carrying out an inspection during business hours. The premises
were registered business premises of M/s. Rajani Fireworks
0
whose proprietor is the son of the respondent no.2. The officials
went to· the premises at 5 p.m. on 24.10.1994. In the same
business premises, the documents and business stocks
relating to Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were also noticed.
During the inspection, the son of the respondent no.2 alongwith E
one Sri. Kasanagottu Satyanarayana said to be one of the
partners of Sri Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros. were
available.
A statement of inspection was recorded. The statement
was recorded by the appellant on a request of the son of the F
respondent no.2 on his business letter pad. The statement
was written by the son of the respondent no.2 on his own,
wherein he duly declared that the shop has been inspected
that day at 5.30 p.m. and that till the date of such inspection
i.e. 24.10.1994, he had not written any of the books of accounts G
relating to his business and that- he did not even give the
returns for the year 1993-94 and also that he did not issue
any sale bills.
As far as the' stocks and documents rE;!lating to Mis.
Kasanagottu Srisailam and Bros'., Mr. Kasanagottu H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A Satyanarayana stated that he was one of the partners and he
gave a statement on his letter head in his own hand writing,
only declaring that till the date of inspection i.e. 24.10.1994
he did not write any books of accounts relating to his business.
He also declared in writing· that he is giving 178 slips
s containing the transactions relating to his business for a
detailed examination by the appellant.
The slips were not seized by the appellant but they were
submitted on their own by the owners of the business. Since
the accounts books were not written by them, these slips were
C filed before the appellant for a subsequent examination, which
was on their own volition.
The stock book was signed and returned. No cash was
recovered.
D The son of the respondent no.2 visited the office of the
appellant and declared that due to ill-health of his grand. mother
he was seeking extension upto 30.10.1994. This was given in
writing by the son of the respondent no.2 who is the proprietor ...
of the business premises in respect of M/s. Rajani Fireworks.
E On three dates, i.e. 7.11.1994, 15.11.1994 and
25.11.1994, the son of the respondent no.2 and Kasanagottu
Satyanarayan came to the office of the appellant but failed to
give any proper explanation for the business transaction.
Thereafter the matter had been taken up and best judgment
F assessment was completed.
After a period of three months after the inspection, i.e.
on 24.1.1995, the respondent no.2 herein filed a complaint for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
G 448, 380, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC') before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class,Karimnagar, stating that the appellant along with his
subordinate, have taken away the bill books, cheque books,
records and also Indira Vikas Patras (for short 'IVPs') worth
H Rs.2 lacs forcibly without giving any acknowledgement and
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 613
OF A.P. & ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
>---f'
without conducting panchanama duly intimidating his son and . A
forcibly taking the signatures of his son on white papers with
an intention to extract Rs.3 lacs.
In the complaint it was mentioned that the shop-cum-
residence was inspected on 24.10.1994 and the time of
....
inspection was 7 - 9.30 p.m. 8
-+
In the sworn statement he mentioned it as 3 p.m. as the
time of inspection.
It is relevant to point that the complaint was not made by
the owner of the business namely the son of the respondent c
no.2 but by the respondent no.2 alone.
The above complaint was referred by the Magistrate to
the police.

-~ After a thorough enquiry the police filed a final report on D
18.9.1995 that the complaint itself is a false complaint.
• • However, the police report was objected to by the
complainant as wrong and incorrect and that it is without any
proper investigation.
E
It appears that without giving any reasons whatsoever
and without recording any defect in the final report of the police
and without any -sufficient additional materials, the said
objection was taken into cognizance and the Magistrate has

- ~
issued notice and process to the appellant and his subordinate
in CC No.356/1996 and the officials were asked to appear
before the Court for trial of offences u/s 448, 380, 384 and
F

506 IPC.
The appellant had appeared from time to time before
the learned Magistrate and it was pointed out that the said G
t \ complaint itself is false and in any case process ought not to
have been issued since there was specific bar contained under
Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,
1957 (in short 'the Act') read with Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A . -The appellant herein ·along with the other officials
preferred a petition before the learned Magistrate under
Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 Cr.P.C. with a
prayer to. dismiss the complaint.
A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before
B the High Court praying for quashing of the proceedings pending f
in CC. No.356 of 1996. This was numbered as .Crl. O.P.
No.4006 of ·1997. This was admitted on 22.10.1997 and the
High Court granted ~n order of interim stay.
c During the course of the hearing it was pointed out to the
High Court that Crl.M.P. No.54/1997 has been filed by the
appellant and others before the learned Magistrate under
Section 37 of the Act read with Section 197 of Cr.P.C. seeking
dismissal of the complaint. The High Court disposed of the
Crl.O.P. No.4006 of. 1997 directing the learned Additional
0
Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Karimnagar to dispose of the ~--
C rl. M. P. No.54 of 1997 within a period of 3 months.
Subsequently the mistake of the fact that the application itself ·•
has been dismissed for default on 21.4.1997 came fo the·
E knowledge of the appellant. The mistake has occurred since
there was communication gap between the appellant and his
counsel at trial court since the appellant has been transferr1d
to various places subsequent to the filing of the ·criminal
complaint. ,
F Therefore, the appellant herein filed a fresh Crl.O.P. under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court pointing the
aforesaid facts and seeking the quashing of the complaint.
This was numbered as Crl. Petition No.5218/2001.
The High Court while taking up the petition stayed all
G further· proceedings in the CC No.356 of 1996.
By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the
Crl.O.P.No. 5218 of 2001 filed by the appellant herein. The
High Court even after noting down all the provisions relevant
H under the Act and after noting down the protection under
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 615
OF A.P. & ANR. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
,··~
Section 197 Cr.P.C. came to hold that "having regard to the A
specific allegation that officer who has searched and seized
the documents has not issued any receipt to evidence that
such seizure was in discharge of official duty or any search
warrant was issued by the appellant before searching the
-'
business premises and the residence of the complaint, it is B
-4 for the appellant/accused to lead evidence and establish that
acts done by him was in due discharge of the official duties
and non issue of receipt in evidence of seizure was in
dereliction ·of duties, if any. In the absence of the same, it is
not possible for this Court to accept the plea taken by the c
appellant that the acts complained of are done in discharge
of official duty or in dereliction of duties for quashing the
proceedings at the initial stage unless the complainant is given
opportunity to establish his case."
The petition was resisted by the respondent before the D
- f.-
High Court on the ground that Section 37 cannot come to the
aid of the appellant as the alleged acts had nothing to do with
t .
discharge of off!cial duty.
With reference to sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 28
it was observed by the High Court that the acts complained E
of are not encompassed by the said provision to give any
protection to the appellant. Accordingly, as noted above, the
petition was dismissed.

. ---\
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the F
appellant submitted that the scope and ambit of Sections 27,
28 and 37 of the Act as well as Section 197 Cr.P.C. have not
been kept in view. It was submitted that the proceedings were
nothing but abuse of the process of law and, therefore, the
High Court should have interfered in the matter. Learned
G
counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that he has no
instructions in the matter and does not want to have any say.
5. In order to appreciate the submissions of the app,ellant
it is necessary to take note of Sections 27, 28 and 37 of the
Act. They read as follows: H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A "Section 27: Possession and submission of certain
records by owners, etc. of goods vehicles: - The owner or
other person in charge of a goods vehicle shall carry with
him,_ (i) Bill of sale or delivery note (ii) goods vehicle
record or trip sheet and (iii) such other documents as may
8 be prescribed relating to the goods under transport and
containing•such particles as may be prescribed and shall
submit to the Commercial Tax Officer, having jurisdiction
over the area in which the goods are delivered, the
documents aforesaid or copies thereof within such time ..
c as may be prescribed.
Section 28: Powers to order production of accounts and
powers of entry, inspection etc.:-
(1) Any officer not below the rank of an Assistant
Commercial Tax officer authorized by the State
0
Government in this behalf may for the purpose of this
Act, require any dealer to produce before him the
accounts, registers and other documents, and to ...
furnish any other information relating to his business.
E (2) All accounts, registers and other documents
maintained by a dealer in the course of his business,
the goods in his possession, and his officers, shops,
godowns, vessels or vehicles shall be open to
inspection by such officer any time during the
F business hours prescribed under the relevant law of
the time being in force or where no such hours are
prescribed at all reasonable times.
(3) If any such officer has reason to suspect that any
dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax
G or other amount due from him under this Act, he may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such
accounts, registers or other documents of the dealers
as he may consider necessary and shall given the
dealer a receipt for the same. The accounts, registers
H and documents so seized shall be retained by such
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 617
OF A.P. & ANR: [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

officer only for so long as may be necessary for their A
examination and for any injury or proceedings under
this Act:
Provided that such accounts, registers and
documents shall not be retained for more than thirty
8
days at a time except with the permission of the next
higher authority.
(4) For the purpose of sub-section (2) or sub-section
(3), any such officer shall have power to enter and
search at any time during the business hours c
prescribed under the relevant law for the time being
in force, or where such hours are prescribed, at all
reasonable times, any officer, shop, godown, vessel,
vehicle or any other place of business or any building
or place where such officer has reason to believe D
that the dealer keeps or is, for the time bring, keeping
any goods, accounts, registers or other documents
of his business.
Provided that no residential accommodation not bring
a shop-cum-residence shall be entered into and E
searched by any officer below the rank of Deputy
Commissioner except on the authority of an order
issued by any officer not below the rank of a Deputy
Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area; or
an officer not below the rank of Deputy F
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department
working in Vigilance and Enforcement Department
having jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra
Pradesh.
And all searches under this sub-section shall so far G
as may be, made in accordance with the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 subject to
the rules, if any, made in this behalf.
(5) The power conferred by sub-section (4) shall include H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

~_.
A the power to break open .and box or re<;:eptacle in
which any goods accou_nts, registers or other
documents of the dealer may be contained, or to
break open the door of any premises, or other
documents may be kept:
B
Provided that the power to break.open the door-shall
be exercised only after the owner or any other person
t
iri occupatio'n of the premises, if he is present therein,
.,
fails or refuses to open the door on being called
upon to do so.
c
Section 37 Protection...of acts done in good faith:
(1) No 'suit, prosecution or other procee'ding shall lie
.against any officer or servant of the State Government
... ·for any act done or'purporting to be done under this
D Act without the previous sandion of the State ~
Government, and no ·such suit, prosecution or other
proceeding shall be instituted after the expiry of six
~
months from the date of the act complained of.
(2) No officer or servant of the State Government shall
E
be liable in respect of an'y such act in any civil or
.criminal proceeding if the act was done in good faith
in the course of the execution of duties imposed on
him or the'discharge offunctions entrusted to him by
or under this Act.
F ~
6. Section 37 like Section 1.97 Cr.P.C. aims at p;-eventing
vexatious prosecution and proceedings. against public ~
servants.
7. Section 37 puts embargo on institution of suits,
G prosecution or other _proceedings against .any officer or any
servant of the State Government for any act done or purported -.-
to be done under the Act without previous sanction of the
State Government. There is a further embargo i.e. no such
suit, prosecution or proceeding shall be instituted after the

~
H expiry of six months from the date of the act complained of.
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 619
OF A.P. & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Sub-section (2) affords protection to the officer referred to A
above in respect of an act if the same was done in good faith
in the ·course of execution of duties imposed or the discharge
of functions entrusted by or under the Act.
8. "Gobd faith" according to the definition in General
-;-t" Clauses Act means a thing, which is in fact done honestly 8
whether it is done negligently or not (See H.H. Maharajadhiraja
Madhav Rao Jivaj{ Rao Scinida Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v.
Union of India and Anr. 1971 (1) SCC 85).
9. Anything done with due care and attention which is not c
malafide is presumed .to have been done in "good faith" ,(See
Madhavrao Narayanrao Patwardhan v. Ram Krishan Govind
Bhanu and Ors. (1959 SCR 564) -
10. Section 197 Cr.P.C: provides for protection to public
servants in discharge of official duties. There is a need to D
balance between protection to officers and protection to
. .
citizens.
11. In Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Ors.
(2006 (1) sec 557) it, was observed as follows:
E
"The protection given under Section 197 is to protect
responsible public servants against the institution of
possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences
alleged to have been committed by them while they are
acting or purporting to act as public servants. The policy F
of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public
servants to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anything
done by them in the discharge of their official duties without
reasonable cause, and if sanction is granted, to confer on
the Government, if they choose to exercise it, complete G
control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits
and is available only when the alleged act done by the
public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge
of his official duty and is not merely a cloak for doing the
objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, he acted in H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
,, __>-
A excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection
between the act and the performance of the official duty,
the excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the
public servant from the protection. The question is not as
to the nature of the offence such as whether the.alleged
offence contained an element necessarily dependent upon
B
the offender being a public servant, but whether it was y
committed by a public servant acting or purporting to act
as such in the discharge of his official capacity. Before
Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the
c official concerned was accused ~f an offence alleged to
have been committed by him while ~cting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official duties. It is not the duty
which requires examination so much as the act, because
the official. act can be performed both in the discharge of
the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must
D ~
fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the
public servant concerned. It is the quality of the act which
is important and the protection of this section is available '(

if the act falls within the scope and range of his official
duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine
E whether there is a reasonable connection between the act
done.and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down any
such rule. One safe and sure test in this regard would be
to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the
public servant to commit the act complained of could have
F made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his !-· ~
official duty, if the answer to his question is in the affirmative,
it may be said that such act was committed by the public
servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty
and there was every connection with the act complained
G of and the official duty of the public servant. This aspect
makes it clear that the concept of Section 197 does not .r-
g.et immediately attracted on institution of the complaint
case."

12. In State of Haryana and Ors. v Bhajan Lal and Ors.
H
GOONDLA VENKATESWARLU v. STATE 621
~-v~ OF AP. & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

(1992 Supp. (1) sec 335), it was observed as follow: A
"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 tb the exercise of the extraordinary
~ power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under B
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 c
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
"1
-1 exercised. D
(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
ag~inst the accused.
E

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) F
of the CQde 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 G
offence and make out a case against the accused.

4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
·H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 12 S.C.R.
.._,

A a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(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
B conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the· accused.
i
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any

c
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings
(
and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code
or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
D (7) Where a criminal proceedin·g 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."
E 13. As the factual scenario goes to show the proceedings
were nothing but abuse of the process of law.
14. In view of what is stated in Section 37 of the Act and
the ratio in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) the appeal deserves to
F be allowed which we direct. The proceedings in CC No.356/
96 pending before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Karimnagar stand quashed.
The appeal is allowed.
G B.B.B. Appeal allowed.