Holding

The High Court's quashing of the FIR was unsustainable; the inherent power under Section 482 must not be exercised on the basis of individual share size, and the appeals are allowed.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order quashing an FIR under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulations, 1995, on the ground that the individual share of the joint family property was less than 1000 sq.m. The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and held that such power must be exercised sparingly, only when the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or does not disclose an offence. It observed that the High Court had erred by focusing on the size of individual shares, an irrelevant factor, and by effectively acting as a court of appeal rather than exercising inherent jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the categories of cases where Section 482 may be invoked, emphasizing that the court should not pre‑empt trial findings. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders and allowed the appeals, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying criminal case.

Issues considered

The propriety of the High Court's exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR on the basis of individual share size.
The proper scope and limits of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in criminal proceedings.
Whether the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence or was frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120(B)

Subjects

Inherent jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCQuashing of FIRAbuse of processJoint family propertyCriminal procedureHigh Court powersFrivolous complaint

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C:R. 400

A STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
~
V.
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS.
Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 2009
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :

c S. 482 - Inherent power under - Exercise of - Discussed
and elaborated - High Court has come to an abrupt conclusion
that the individual shares could be less than 1000 sq.m. -
This is not a relevant aspect for consideration - This will be
adjudicated in trial - Orders of High Court quashed.
D These two appeals have been fil~d against the
judgment of the High Court allowing two petitions under ..
s.482 .Cr.P.C.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
E HELD: 1. While exercising powers under Section 482
Cr..P.C., the Court does not function as a court of appeal
I
· or revision. lnherentjurjsdiction under the Section though
wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with ....
caution and only when such exercise is -justified by the
F tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice.for the administration of which alone courts exist.
- Authority_ of the court e~ists for ~dvancement of justice
and .if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as
G
to produce injustice, -the court has power to prevent sµch ·
abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court· to
allow any action which would result in inJustice and t
....
,,..

prevent promotion of justice. Ira exercises of the powers
court would be justified to quash any proceeding if itfinqs
H 400
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 401
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS.

that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of A
the process of court or quashing of these proceedings
.would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no
offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought
to be quashed, It is permissible to look into the materials B
to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether
any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto. [Para 7) [ 406-E, F, G, H; 407-A, B]
2.1 The powers possessed by the High Court under·
Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very c
plenitude of the power requires great caution in its
exercise. 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. High Court being the highest Court D
of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie
decision in a case where the entire 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 magnitude and E
cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient
material. Of course, no hard and fastrule can be laid down
in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise
its extraordinary jurisdiction' of quashing. the proceeding
at any stage.[Para 1OJ [ 400-D, E, F, G]
F
2.2 It would not be proper for the High Court to
analyse the case. of the complainant in the light ·of all·
probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction
WOUid. be sustainable and Ol'f such premises, arrive at a
conclusion that the proce~dings are to be quashed. It G
_,;
1 would be erroneous to assess the material before it and
conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with.
In procee~ing instituted on complaint, exercise of the
inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for
-~-
only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any H
402 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the
allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the
offence of which cognizance has been taken by the
Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same
in ex~n;~ise ef the inherent powers under Section 482 of
13 the Code. It is nQt, however, necessary that there should
be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find
out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.
The complaint/F.l.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears
that Qn consideration of the allegations in the light of the
statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed
C in the F.LR. that the ingredients of the offence or offences
are disclosed and there is no material to show that the
complaint/F.l.R, is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that
event there would be no justification for interference by
the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police.
D station and an offence is registered, then the mala tides
of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is
the material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the
accused person. The allegations of mala tides against the
E iriformant are of no c:onsequence and cannot by itself be
the basis for quashing the proceeding. [Para 10] [ 409-H;
410-A, 8, C, D, E, F]
R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; The Janata
F Oaf etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc. AIR 1993 SC 892;
Or. Raghubir Saran v. State of 8ihar and another, AIR 1964
SC 1; Mrf!?,, Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others
AIR 1990 §C 494; State of Bihar and another v. PP Sharma,
/.A.S. ang another 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222; Rupan Deal Bajaj
-
G (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and another 1995 _>....,
(6) SCC 194; State of Kera/a and others v. 0. C. Kuttan and )

1-
others 1999 (2) SCC 651; State of UP v. 0. P Sharma 1996
(7) SCC 705; Ra$hmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada
1997 (2) SCC 397; Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
H Delhi) and another 1999 (8) sec 728; Rajesh Bajaj v. State
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 403
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS.

NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216; State of Karnataka A
v. M. Devendrappa and another 2002 (3) SCC 89 and State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Anr. 2008(11 )JT
574 - relied on.
3. It appears that the High Court has come to an
B
abrupt conclusion that the individual shares could be less
than 1000 Sq.m. That is not the relevant aspect for
consideration of the issues raised. Therefore, the
impugned orders of the High Court are unsustainable and
are quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases
c
which are to be adjudicated in trial. [Para 11] [ 411-8, C]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1960 SC 866 relied on Para 8
D
.. 1992 Supp (1) sec 335 relied on Para 9
AIR 1993 SC 892 relied on Para 10
AIR 1964 SC 1 relied on Para 10
E
AIR 1990 SC 494 relied on Para 10
1992 Suppl (1) sec 222 relied on Para 10
1995 (6) sec 194 relied on Para 10
1999 (2) sec 651 relied on Para 10 F
1996 (7) sec 105 relied on Para 10
1997 (2) sec 397 relied on Para 10
1999 (8) sec 728 relied on Para 10
G
-1
... . AIR 1999 SC 1216 relied on Para 10
2002 (3) sec 89 relied on Para 10
2008(11) JT 574 relied on Para 10
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 $.C.R ..

A CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICT10N: Criminal Appeal
No. 288 of 2009
From the final Judgement and Order dated 29.1.2007 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
B Misc. No. 32280-M-2003.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2009
Rachana Joshi lssar and Shailendra Kumar, for the
Appellants. ' ·
c
Vijay l:;:l~nsaria, Sanjay Sarin, Samina Sheikh, Saneha,
Abhinav Ramkrishna and Ashok Mathur, with him for the
Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a
E learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
allowing two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). Respondent
had made prayer that the FIR No. 152 dated 12.7.2002
registered under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and
F Property Regulations, 1995 (in short the 'Regulation') at police
station Sultanwind, Amritsar.should be quashed. The complaint
was filed on the premises that the total area alleged to have
sold was 1861.16 Sq. Yards which was jointly held by four real
brothers and the individual shares comes to 465.29 Sq. Yards.
G It was alleged that the accused per.sons had sold joint family
property by conveying land into an unauthorised colony in
violation of the provisions of the Act and each one of them was
therefore guilty of offence punishable under Section 36 of the
Act read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Pehal Code, 1860
H (in short the 'IPC'). The respondents in the petition filed before
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 405
~
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

• the High Court stated that the individual shares come below A
465.29 sq. yards and, therefore, there was no violation. The
stand of the appellant before the High Court was that by selling
1861.16 Sq. Yards in a joint Khasra to different purchasers, the
accused person had violated the provisions of the Act and,
therefore, they were rightly proceeded against. Reference was B
made under Section 2(k) of the Act which shows that the
expression 'Person' includes a 'company, firm, cooperative
J society, joint family and 'body of persons' whether incorporated
or not. Therefore, it was pleaded that the joint holders are to be
-(
treated as one person in the eye of law in such prosecutions. C'
The High Court accepted the stand of the respondents by holding
that even if the property continued to be joint, it cannot be said
that the venders had sold anything more than their respective
shares.

" 3. Section 2(i) of the Act reads as follows: D
"Colony - Colony means an area of land not less than
1000 sq. meters divided or proposed to be divided into
plots for residential, commercial or, industrial purpose, but
does not include any area of abadi deh of the village falling
inside its Lallakir or phirny or any area of land divided or E
proposed to be divided."
• 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
accused persons have accepted that they had sold the land in
the year 1996 and, therefore, there was clear violation. It is F
submitted that the High Court had not kept in yiew the parameters
of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
supported the impugned order of the High Court. It was also
I
--'.
submitted that no offence was made out. G
-f
6. It appears that the High Court came to an abrupt conclusion
that if the property continues to be joint it cannot be said that the
\lendor sold anything more than their respective shares.

• 7. 'Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R. >--
~

I
·r
.
A case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section
does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves
•
the inherent power which the Court possessed before the I--

enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under
which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to
B 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. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any ~

inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
\
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can
c provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, ~

have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which
are necessary for proper discharge of functions. and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds
expression in the Section which merely recognizes and
D preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether
civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, ')

as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary
to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration
of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alique concedit,
E conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when the
law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it "
cannot exist). While exercising powers under the Section, the
Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent ..
jurisdiction under the Section though wide has to be exercised ..
F sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise
is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself.
It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority
of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt
G is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the '·
court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of ,.._ ;
t- I-
process of the court to allow any action which would result in )
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercises of the r
powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it -
H· finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the t-

~
r
T
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 407
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS. [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

process of court or quashing of these proceedings would A
otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, 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 B
even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
8. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), this
J Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent
power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
c
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; D
(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.
9. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in E
mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent
with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 F
of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or
whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would
not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, G
or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
'•

A needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument
handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power
under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases
where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to
B cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some •,
detail by this Court in State of Harvana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335). A note of caution was, however, added that the ~
power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of
c rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court
are as follows:
"(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
D constitute any offence or make out a case against the
..
~
'
accused. l

(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
E 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. 1.4

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.l.R.
F 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) Where the allegations in the F.1.R. do not constitute a ''
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
G offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer ,i....... ~
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
S. 155(2) of the Code. "'
''
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint I
.._L
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
H
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 409
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

J~ which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion A
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
B
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.
c
(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." D
....
10. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the
very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise.
Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this
E
power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should
not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court
being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from
.~

' giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts
are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not
F
been collected and produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot
be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of
course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases
in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction
G
..... .,,,,,., of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: The Janata Dal
etc. v. H.S. Chowdharv and others, etc. (AIR 1993 SC 892), Dr.
Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1964 SC 1)).
It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of
the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on
such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are
to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material
before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded
with. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the
B inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a
case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in
the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance
has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to
c quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section '
482 ofthe Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should '
be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out
whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The
complaint/F.l.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on
o consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made
on oath of the complainant or disclos~d in the F.l.R. that the
ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there
is no material to show that the complaint/F.1.R. is mala fide,
frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification
E for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged
at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala
fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is
the material collected during the investigation and evidence led
in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The
F allegations of mala tides against the informant are of no
consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the
proceeding. (See : Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar
and others (AIR 1990 SC 494), State of Bihar and another v. P.
P. Sharma. I.AS. and another (1992 Suppl (1) SCC 222), Ru pan
G Deal Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and
another (1995 (6) sec 194), State of Kerala and others V. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. 0. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh
Kumar Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State
H (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another (1999 (8) sec 728), Rajesh
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. V. 411
INDER MOHAN CHOPRA & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

.of.-· Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216), A
State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another (2002 (3)
SCC 89) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bajjoori Kanthaiah
and Anr. [2008(11 )JT 574].
11. It appears that the High Court has come to an abrupt
conclusion that the individual shares could be less than 1000 8
Sq.m. That is not the relevant aspect for consideration of the
issues raised. Therefore, the impugned orders of the High Court
+·
are unsustainable and are quashed. We make it clear that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the cases which
are to be adjudicated in trial. C
12. The appeals are allowed.

G.N . Appeals allowed.
.•