Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction; Section 482 may be invoked only when the FIR/charge‑sheet on its face does not disclose a cognizable offence, and the court cannot re‑appraise evidence to find no prima facie case.

Summary

The police seized a truck loaded with stolen railway track pieces and recorded a report, treated as an FIR, alleging that the goods were loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla. A charge‑sheet was filed and the magistrate took cognizance of an offence under Section 414 IPC. The respondent petitioned the Patna High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the cognizance; the High Court did so, finding no prima facie case. The State appealed, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑appraising the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the inherent power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and only when the FIR or charge‑sheet, on its face, does not disclose a cognizable offence; the court cannot shift or evaluate evidence to conclude that no prima facie case exists. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the magistrate was directed to proceed with trial.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a magistrate's order of cognizance after re‑appraising the evidence and finding no prima facie case.
Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge‑sheet, taken at face value, disclose an offence under Section 414 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 161, s. 414

Subjects

inherent jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCquash cognizanceprima facie casecriminal procedureSection 414 IPCFIRcharge sheetabuse of process

Judgment

(
A STATE OF BIHAR }
v.
SRI RA.IENDRA AGRAWALLA

JANUARY 18, 1996

B [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.j

Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 :

S. 482-Inherent powers of High Cowt-Exercise of-Magistrate taking
C cognizance of offence under s. 414 !PC-High Court quashing the
orde1-Held, High Cowt exceeded its jwisdiction in appreciating evidence and
holding that no p1ima facie case was made out.

The police found a truck loaded with pieces of the track trolly used
in B.C.C.L. The driver told that the truck was loaded from the factory of
D the respondent, and the goods had been purchased by a company. No
documents regarding the transaction were produced. The duty officer
prepared a report which was treated as the F.I.R. A case under s.414 I.P.C.
was registered. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against
the respondent and five others was filed before the Magistrate, who took
E cognizance of the offence. The respondent filed a petition under s. 482 Cr.
P.C. before the High Court praying for quashing the order of cognizance.
The High Court allowed the petition. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeal. •

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court
F
HELD : 1.1. The inherent power of the Court under s.482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be very sparingly and cautiously used
only when the court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest
injustice or there would be abuse of the process of court if such power is
G not exercised. So far as the order of cognizance by a Magistrate .is con-
cerned, the inherent power can be exercised when the allegations in the
First Information Report or the complaint together with the other
materials collected during investigation, taken at their face value, do not
constitute the ollence alleged. At that stage it is not open for the court
either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and come to the
H conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. [747-A-C]
744
STATEv. R.AGRAWALLA(G.B.PATl"ANAIK,J.] 745

1.2. On examination of the charge-sheet and the F.I.R. filed in the A
case, it is evident that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by trying
to appreciate the evidence and coming to the condusion that no offence is
made out. The High Court was wholly unjustified in invoking its inherent
power under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
cognizance taken in as much as the allegation in the F.I.R. and the material
B
referred to in the charge-sheet do make out an offence under s.414, I.P.C.
·so far as the respondent is concerned.

Mrs. Rupan Deal Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., JT
(1995) 7 SC 299, relied on.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
c
66 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.92 of the Patna High Court
in Cr!. Misc. No. 475 of 1992 (R).
D
B.B. Singh for the Appellant.

U .R. Lalit, E.C. Vidyasagar and lmtiaz Ahmad for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
G.B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

This appeal by the State is directed against the order of the Patna
High Court dated 5.3.1992, by which order the High Court has quashed
the cognizance taken against the respondent under Section 414 of the
Indian Penal Code. F
Shri Uddai Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhanbad Police Station
was on duty at the Police Station on 8.1.1992. At 5.15 P.M. two Constables
brought a truck bearing Registration No. HRX-3125 along with its driver,
Khalasi and two other persons and reported that they found the truck
coming speedly and crossing the Railway gate and did not stop even though G
the vehicle was asked to stop. They, therefore, chased the vehicle and
stopped the same after some time and found that the truck has been loaded
with pieces of iron tracks which were the property of B.C.C.L. On their
enquiry about the documents, a copy of challan was shown but suspecting
something wrong they brought the truck with the persons to the Police H
•

f!
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Station. The Sub-Inspector then found on checking that most of the iron
loaded on the truck were the pieces of the track trolly used in B.C.C.L. On
suspicion the Sub-Inspector asked the driver who told that the truck has
been loaded from the factory of Rajendra Agarwalla, the respondent in
this appeal and one Surendra Agarwalla, proprietor of Associate Iron and
B Steel Company at Saraidhela has purchased the same. But they could not
produce any document. He therefore submitted a report lo the Inspector-
cum-Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station alleging that the accused
persons are guilty of offence under Section 414 of LP.C. and the said report
was treated as First Information Report. After investigation, charge sheet
was filed against the respondent and five other persons on 21.1.1992. In
C G.R. Case No. 107 of 1992, fhe learned Magistrate on perusal of the papers
submitted by the police and all other relevant materials took cognizance of
the offence in question on 1.2.1992. The respondent thereafter filed-ap-
plication in the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench invoking the jurisdiction
of the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying
D for quashing the order of cognizance taken and the said application was
registered as Criminal Case No. 475 of 1992. The learned Judge by the
impugned order having quashed the cognizance taken by the Magistrate so
far as respondent is concerned, the State has approached this Court.

E Mr. B.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State contended
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure by trying to appreciate the evidence on record and ,
thereafter recording the finding that no prima facie case has been made
out. Mr. Singh further contended that notwithstanding the well recognised
principle enunciated by this Court that the power under Section 482 of the
F
Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised very sparingly and cau-
ciously and only when the court comes to the conclusion that there has
been an abuse of the process of the court, but in the case in hand the
learned Judge examined the legality of the order of cognizance as a court
of appeal and as such the order of the High Court is unsustainable in law.
G Mr. U .R. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the
other hand contended that the High Court having examined the material
and having come to the conclusion that the materials on record do not
make out an offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, the court
was fully justified in quashing the order of cognizance and the same order
H should not be interfered by this Court.
\
;
STATEv. R.AGRAWALLA[G.B. PATTANAIK.J.) 747

It has been held by this Court in several cases that the inherent power A
of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should
be very sparingly and cauciously used only when the court comes to the
conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse
of the process of the court, if such power is not exercised. So far as the
order of cognizance by a Magistrate is concerned, the inherent power can
B
be exercised when the allegations in the First Information Report or the
;< complaint together with the other materials collected during investigation
I taken at their face value, do not constitute the offence alleged. At that stage
it is not open for the court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the
evidence and come to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out.
In a recent Judgment of this Court to which one of us (Hon. K. Rarnasway, c
J) was a member it has been held, following the earlier decision in Mrs.
Rupan Deal Bajaj & A11r. v. Ka11war Pal Si11gh Gill & A11r., JT 1995 (7) SC
299:

'It is thus settled law that the exercise of inherent power of the D
High Court is an exceptional one. Great care should be taken by
the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the FIR/charge-
sheet/complaint. In deciding whether the case is rarest of rare cases
to scuttle the prosecution in its inception, it first has to get into
the grip of the matter whether the allegations constitute the of-
fence. It must be remembered that FIR is only an initation to move E
the machinery and to investigate into cognisable offence. After the
• investigation is concluded and the charge-sheet is laid the prosecu-
tion produces the statements of the witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of the Code in support of the charge-sheet. At that
stage it is not the function of the Court to weigh the pros and cons F
of the prosecution case or to consider necessity of strict com-
pliance of the provisions which are considered mandatory and its
effect of non-compliance. It would be done after the trial is
concluded. The Court has to p1ima facie consider from the aver-
ments in the charge-sheet and the statements of witnesses on the
record in support thereof whether court could take cognizance of G
the offence, on that evidence and proceed further with the trial. If
it reaches a conclusion that no cognigible offence is made out no
further act could be done except to quash the charge sheet. But
only in exceptional cases, i.e. in rarest of rare cases of ma/a fide
initiation of the proceedings to wreak private vengence process of H
(
748 SUPREME COURT REP ORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.
'
A criminal is availed of in laying a complaint or FIR itself does not
disclose at all any cognisable offence - the Court may embark upon
the consideration thereof and exercise the power.

When the remedy under Section 482 is available, the High
Court would be loath and circumspect to exercise its extraordinary
B power under Article 226 since efficacious remedy under Section.
482 of the Code is available. When the Court exercises its inherent
power under Section 482 the prime consideration should only be !
whether the exercise of the power would advance the cause of
justice or it would be an abuse of the process of the court. When
c investigation officer spends considerable time to collect the
evidence and places the charge-sheet before the Court, further
action should not be short-circuited by resorting to exercise in-
herent power to quash the charge-sheet. The social stability and
order requires to be regulated by proceeding against the offender
as it is an offence against the society as a whole. This cardinal
D principle should always be kept in mind before embarking upon
exercising inherent power.'

Bearing in mind the aforesaid parameters if the charge sheet and the
F.l.R. filed in the case in hand are examined and the impugned order of
E the High Court is tested, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction by trying to appreciate the evidence and
coming to a conclusion that no offence is made out. On examining the
material on record and the impugned judgment of the High Court we are
of the considered opinion that the High Court was wholly unjustified in
F invoking its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the cognizance taken in as much as the allegation in
the F.I.R. and material referred to in the charge sheet do make out an
offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, so far as the respon-
dent is concerned. In the aforesaid premise the impugned order of the
High Court dated 5.3.1992 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 475 of
G 1992 is quashed and this appeal is allowed. The Magistrate is directed to
proceed with the trial against the respondent. The respondent may now
appear before the Magistrate forthwith.

R.P. Appeal allowed.