Holding

A criminal complaint that is frivolous, lacks the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and amounts to an abuse of process must be quashed by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Summary

The appellant Gorige Pentaiah was charged in a criminal complaint filed by Bakaram Eswar alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and IPC sections 427, 447 and 506, relating to demolition of a wall, caste insult and intimidation in a land dispute. The appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings, but the High Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the ingredients of the alleged offences and found that the complaint omitted essential elements, such as the accused’s non‑SC/ST status and any act of intimidation, and that the complainant was not in possession of the land. The Court held that the complaint was frivolous, baseless and an abuse of the judicial process, warranting the exercise of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 to quash the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the criminal complaint and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act and the IPC sections alleged.
Whether the High Court erred in not exercising its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashment.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 427, s. 447, s. 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(1)(x)

Subjects

Section 482inherent powersabuse of processSC/ST Actfrivolous complaintquash criminal proceedingsland disputecriminal law

Judgment

,. ,, ·•
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 623

GORIGE PENTAIAH A
v.
STATE OF A.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of 2008)
AUGUST 20, 2008
B
~ [DALVEER BHANDARI ANO J.M. PANCHAL, JJ]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 482 - Power of High Court to quash criminal
proceedings - An unsuccessful litigant in a land dispute filing c
criminal complaint against his opponent alleging offences u/
s 3(1 )(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 and ss. 427, 447 and 506
/PC - High Court declining to interfere - HELD: Every High
Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real D
-i.,
and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone
it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court- 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 E
of specific provisions in the Statute - In the instant case, in the
entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the 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 - F
~ ~. Similarly, ingredients of s.506 /PC are totally absent in the
complaint wherein it is not even mentioned that the accused
had intimidated or threatened the complainant or any one
'\ else - Complainant was not even in possession of the suit
property on the date of incident and this fact has not been
G
disputed by the State - Therefore, the allegation made in the
~
complaint, that the appellant demolished the wall could not
arise - The a/legations are totally baseless and without
any foundation - On the face of it, it looks that the criminal
623 {;) H
..
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A complaint filed by the complainant was totally false and
frivolous - Complaint was filed with an oblique motive - In this
view of the matter, charges ulss. 427 and 447 /PC are also
wholly illegal and unsustainable in Jaw - 111/hen the basic
ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then
s permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the
accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be
totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law - The
t
High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction uls. 482
Cr.PC. and quashed the complaint - Consequently, the
c judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the
complaint is quashed - Schedµ/ed Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 - s. 3(1 )(x) - Penal
Code, 1860 - ss. 427', 447 ands. 506.[para 8-10, 14-17 and
33)
D R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 (3) SCR 388 =AIR
1960 SC 866; State of Kamataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others
1977 (3) SCR 113=(1977) 2 SCC 699; Chandrapal Singh &
Others v. Maharaj Singh & Another (1982) 1 SCC 466;
Madhavrao Jiwejirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao
E Chandrojirao Angre & Others 1988 (2) SCR 930=(1988) 1
SCC 692 ; State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary &
Others 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226=(1992) 4 SCC 305; G.
Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others 2000 (1) SCR
F 417=(2000) 2 SCC 636; Roy VD. v. State of Kera/a ?000 (4)
Suppl. SCR 539=(2000) 8 SCC 590 ; Zandu Pharmaceutical }- .
Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another 2004
(5) Suppl. SCR 790=(2005) 1 SCC 122; Indian Oil
Corporation v: NEPC India Ltd. & Others 2006 (3) Suppl. .
G SCR 704=(2006) 6 SCC 736; lnder Mohan Goswami &
Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others 2007 {10) SCR 847
=AIR 2008 SC 251 - relied on.
Connelly v. DPP (1964] AC 1254; and Lord Salmon in
OPP v. Humphrys (1977] AC 1 - referrad to.
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 625

A~
Case Law Reference: A,

[1964] AC 1254 referred to para 18
[1977] AC 1 referred to para 18
1960(3) SCR 388 relied on para 19
1977 (3) SCR 113 relied on para 21 B

' 1982 (1) sec 46
1988 (2) SCR 930
1992 Supp. (1) sec 335
relied on
relied on
relied on
para 22
para ·24
para 25
c
1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226 relied on para 26
2000 (1) SCR 417 relied on para 27
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 53 relied on para 28
·2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 790 relied on para 29
D
-~
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704 relied on para 30
2007 (10) SCR 847 relied on para 32
CRIMINALAPPEALATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1311 of 2008
E ·-
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.9.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
Criminal Petition No. 2558 of 2004

S. Sharma and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
F
' ~
L.N. Gupta and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated G'
4 19.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this
appeal are recapitulated as under: .'1'-.

Bakaram Eswar, respondent No.3 herein; on 15.62004, H
_/

0-
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A filed a complaint against the appellant in the Police Station,
Uppal, Hyderabad which reads as under:
''To
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Up pal.
B
Subject: One Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaiah of Uppal
Village has come to our 3200 sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 80 of
Peerjadiguda with his menat 11.30 in the night and demolished
the wall and went away. You are requested to take action. Apart
C from that though on 27 .5.2004 said Gorige Pentaiah s/o Bakkaia. _
abused us with the name of our caste no action is taken against
them. I am requesting you to take action against the said people.
I am filing all xerox copies of documents to show my rights in the
said land. Said Pentaiah obtained pass books and .pahanies
· in his name illegally in respect of our land in Sy. No. 80 and has
D been harassing us. R.D.O. has stayed the said entries. You are
requested to take action against the said pentaiah and his men
who demolished the compounded wall of our plot. We are also
afraid that they may come at any time and kill us. Said Pentaiah
drove our security guards Ramulu and Sudhakar and
E demolished the wall. You are requested to take action against
the said person.
Sd/B.Eswar
(Bakara Eswar) S/o Rajaiah
Peerjadiguda Village,
F
Ghatkesar Manda!, RR District."
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
G High Court for quashing of the proceedings emanating from
Crime No. 281 of 2004 Police Station Uppal, Hyderabad. The
High Court, by impugnedjudgment dated 19.9.2006, dismissed
the said petition.
,A.ggrieved by the dismissal of the petition by the High Court,
H present app~I. by special leave, is preferred by the appellant.
-
··.,' ' ··- . . .'(~tif.;;.~.:·> '".. -' "~'". .
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 627

.. ,,,-· Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted A
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 44 7, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal B
Code .

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

"3( 1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled C~~_t_e c
-
or a Scheduled Tribe:-
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
any place within public view."
D
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
E
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 F
-\ 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
I

would.be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. G

Similarly, we find that the ingredients of Section 506 of the
Indian Penal Code are totally absent in the complaint.
In the complaint it is not even mentioned that the accused
had intimidated or threatened the complainant or any one else. H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A In absence of basic ingredients of the section in the complaint, ·~"
no case under section 506 IPC can be sustained.
·Section 506 reads as under:
"Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation
B shall be punished with imprisonment. of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both".
I
"Criminal intimidation" has been defined in Section 503
which reads as under:
c
"Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person.
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, -0r to omit to
D
do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as )..
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits
criminal intimidation."
It may be pertinent to mention here that respondent No. 3
E 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
F · withdraw the above as not pressed".
)...
Respondent No.3 also filed a second suit bearing O.S. No.
1211of2004 in the month of July, 2004 with the following prayer:
"Pass a decree in favour of plaintiffs and against the
G defendants, their agents, legal heirs, successors, attorneys
etc. declaring that the plaintiffs are absofcite owners and
direct the defendants to handover the peaceful
possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs".
The details of the scheduled property are as under:
H

.... . ..\
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF AP. & ORS. 629

.A .,.,,
"All that the piece and parcel of plots bearing Nos. 198 to A
216 (totally plots 19) in Survey No. 80, total admeasuring
3,200 sq. yards or 2675 sq. meters, situated at
Peerzadiguda Village and Grampanchayath, Ghatkesar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by:
North: Land belongs to Satyanarayana (survey of India) B

" and Purender Reddy;
South : Road and land belongs to late Cheruku Sailu;
East : Road and grave yard;
c
West : Land belongs to Humari Manikyam"
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 D
-1' 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 E
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 F
Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the complaint.
Scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482
Cr.P.C.
G
1 This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope
and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 H
.·,
,,

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . '[2008] 12 S.C.R.

A power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(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.
B
Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide ,,
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution
and onfy when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for ··
c 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 injustiGe by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
Discussion of decided cases
D
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
E achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown
Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. In
Connelly v. OPP [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 OPP v. Humphrys [1977] AC
F 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
G importance and should be jealously preserved.
In R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this ·I--
court summarized some categories of cases where inherent
power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
H (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 631

'
.> ..i
against the institution or continuance of the A
proceedings;
(ii) 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;
B
~ (iii) 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.

The powers possessed by the High Court under section
482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the c
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 D
--( 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 E
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.

This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others
~
(1977) 2 sec
699 observed that the wholesome power under F
section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a
proceeding when it comes to the conclusion thal 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 G
i 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 H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

·y ~,..
A 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.
In Chandrapal Singh & Others v. Maharaj Singh &
Another (1982) 1 SCC 466, in a landlord and tenant matter
B where criminal proceedings had been initiated, this Court

c
observed in para 1 at page 467 as under:-
"A frustrated landlord after having met his waterloo in the
hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant
in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie
'
appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts
when stated are so telling that the further discussion may
appear to be superfluous."
The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much
D 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.
E This court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v.
Sambhajirao ChandrojiraoAngre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692
observed in para 7 as under:
"7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution
F 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
G
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis
that the court cannot be utilized 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
H
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 633
;. y
continue, the court may while taking into consideration the A
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even
though it may be at a preliminary stage."
In State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, this court in the backdrop of
l . interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. under B
-~
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enJnciated 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 Cr.P.C. gave the
following categories of cases by way of illustration wher~in such c
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, cl~arly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to .give an exhaustive list to D
·-1
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 E
against the accused.
(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
..., ~ F
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 G
i of the same do not disclose the commission of any
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-
H
634 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.

A cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
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
B of which no prudent person can ever r~ach a just . J
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for f
proceeding. against the accused.
(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 proceeding is manifestly attended ~
with ma/a fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for "-
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
E to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
This court in Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary & Others
(1992) 4 sec 305 observed thus:
"132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power
F to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of
justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined
should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but
should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito
justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers
G
possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the
Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power
requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
. based on sound principles."
H
GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P. & ORS. 635

> .,.I
In G Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others (2000) A
2 sec 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.
This court in Roy VD. v. State of Kera/a (2000) 8 SCC
) . 590 observed thus:- B
-~
"18. It is well settled that the power under section 482
Cr.P.C has to be exercised by the High Court, inter aYia,
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. Where criminal proceedings
are initiated based on illicit material collected on search c
and arrest which are per se illegal and vitiate not only a
conviction and sentence based on such material but also
the trial itself, the proceedings cannot be allowed to go on
as it cannot but amount to abuse of the process of the
court; in such a case not quashing the proceedings would 0
~ perpetuate abuse of the process of the court resulting in
great hardship and injustice to tre accused. In our opinion,
> exercise of power under section 482 CrPC to quash
proceedings in a case like the one on hand, would jndeed
secure the ends of justice."
E
This court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122
observed thus:-
"It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any
\
~ ~ action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion F
of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified
to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance
of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing
of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of
justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, G
.J_ the court may examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to
look into the materials to assess what the complainant
has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto." 1-1
-t
r-
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 12 S.C.R.
"( "· I·
A In Indian Oil Corporation v NEPC India Ltd. & Others
(2006) 6 sec 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 . t
B
observed that "any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which ')I
r .
l
dq not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through '
criminal prosecution should be deprecated.and discouraged." ,._
'
r
The question before us is - whether the case of the
c 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
D
1208 IPC? For determination of the question· it becomes
relevant to note the nature of the offences alleged against the )>-- r
appellants, the ingredients of the offences and the averments
made in the FIR/complaint. "'-
~ I

A three judge Bench of this court in lnder Mohan Goswami
t
E & Another v State of Uttaranchal & Others AIR 2008 SC 251
has examined scope and ambit of section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The court in the said case observed that f
inherent powers under section 482 should_ be exercised for the
advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to

F
injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court
would be fully justified in preventing injustice by invoki.ng inherent )- ...r
powers of the court.
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
G the High Court and quash the complaint emanating from Crime
~
·'
No.281 of 2004, Police Station, Uppal, Hyderabad.
J.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
H