Supreme Court of India
VINEET KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2017 INSC 305
- Decided
- 31 March 2017
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the proceedings were manifestly attended with malafide and were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, falling within Category 7 of Bhajan Lal, and therefore the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The appellants, Vineet Kumar and others, had loaned money to the complainant’s family and later filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques. The complainant subsequently alleged that the appellants had raped her and filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to an FIR for offences under Sections 452, 376(d) and 323 IPC. The investigating officer recorded statements from the complainant’s relatives, who denied any rape, and submitted a final report concluding that the allegations were false; no contemporaneous medical examination was produced. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the material could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was manifestly malafide, fell within Category 7 of the Bhajan Lal test, and that the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the case. Consequently, the entire criminal proceeding was set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of abuse of process.
- Whether the material on record, including lack of medical evidence and statements of relatives, justified invoking Category 7 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to quash the case.
- Whether the allegations under Sections 452, 376(d) and 323 IPC constituted a cognizable offence in view of the investigation’s findings.
- Whether the High Court was bound to consider the investigating officer’s final report and the protest petition before summoning the accused.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 164, s. 182, s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 376(d), s. 452
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881s. 138
Subjects
Section 482 CrPCabuse of processquashing criminal proceedingsmalafide prosecutionfalse complaintNegotiable Instruments ActIPC 452IPC 376(d)IPC 323medical evidenceinherent jurisdiction
Judgment
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 922
A VINEET KUMAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 577of2017)
B MARCH 31, 2017
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, I973 - s.482 - Quashing of -
The complainant, her husband and her son had borrowed some
amounts from the accused persons - Ensuring repayment to accused.
c various cheques were drawn, which were dishonoured - Pursuant
thereto, complaints uls.138 Negotiable Instruments Act were filed
by the accused - Thereafter, complainant alleged rape by the accused
at her house and filed application uls. I 56(3) Cr.P. C. before
magistrate- During investigation, JO recorded statement of
D prosecutrixlcomplainant u/s.I64 Ci:PC. and after considering other
materials came to conclusion that no such incident took place and
submitted final report - But, Magistrate found sufficient grounds to
proceed and summoned the accused - Revision filed by accused
against the order, was dismissed - High Court also dismissed
application uls. 482 Cr.P. C. - On appeal, held: No medical
E
examination of the complainant was done on the date of incident -
It was done after almost a month, which was totally irrelevant -
Further, Brother-in-law and sister-in-law of complainant recorded •
their statements that complainant had lodged a false report -
Investigating officer also could not find any proof of offence -
F Apart from bald assertions by the complainant that all accused raped
·her, there was nothing which could have led the Courts to form an
opinion against the accused - The materials indicated that the
criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with malafide and
maliciously instituted with ulterior motive - Therefore, judgment of
G High Court as well as orders passed by lower courts including the
entire criminal proceedings quashed - Penal Code, I860 - ss.452.
376(d), 323.
Code of Criminal Procedurq, I973 - s. 482 - Inherent powers
of High Court - Held:· In case solemn process of court is sought to
be abused by a person with oblique motive, the Court has to thwart
H
922
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 923
the attempt at the very threshold - The Court cannot permit a A
prosecution to go on, if the case falls in one of the categories
illustratively enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal - Judicial process cannot be allowed to be converted into an
instrument of operation or harassment - Administration of Justice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD: 1. There was sufficient material on record to indicate
that there were financial transactions between the accused and
complainant, her husband and son. On dishonour of cheques
issued by the complaint's husband and son, proceedings under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were already initiated c
by the accused. All family members of the complainant were living
in the same house. During investigation, IO has recorded the
statements of brother of complainant's husband as well as wife of
husband's brother who were residing in the same house and have
categorically denied that any incident happened in their house.
Both, in their statements and affidavits have condemned the D
complainant for lodging a false report. Their statements were
part of the Case Diary and was mat_erial which ought to have been
looked into which was submitted by the IO in the Final Report.
[Paras 28, 34) [940-C; 941-B-D)
2. The fact is that no medical examination was got done on E
the date of incident or even on the next day or on 07.11.2015,
when IO asked the complainant and her husband to get done the
medical examination. Subsequently it was done on 20.11.2015,
which was wholly irrelevant. Apart from bald assertions by the
complainant that all accused have raped, there was nothing which F
could have led the Courts to form an opinion that present case is
fit a case of prosecution which ought to be launched. Further, the
statement given by the prosecutrix/complainant under Section
164 Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly brushed away but the statement
was required to be considered along with antecedents, facts and
circumstances as noted above. [Para 35] [941-D-F) G
3. There are cases where despite statement under Section
164 Cr.P.C. by prosecutrix the Supreme Court referring to
material collected during investigation had held that the case was
fit where the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings. [Para 38) [944-E) H
•
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A 4. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of
justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused
by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart
the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a
prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as
B
illustratively enumerated by this Court in *State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot
be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or
harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a fide and proceeding
C is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court
will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding ·under Category 7 as enumerated
in State of Harymta vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
"(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
D 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."
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present
case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of the
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant
E facts of the present case, materials on which Final Report was
submitted by the IO. Thus, the present is a fit case where High
Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr. P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings. [Para 39] (944-F-
H; 945-B-C]
F *State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
1992 Suppi. (1) SCC 335 ..:.. relied on.
State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. 1977
(2) SCC 699 : [1977) 3 SCR 113; State of Karnataka v.
M Devenderappa and Am: 2002 (3) SCC 89 : (2002]
G 1 SCR 275; Sunder Babu and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu 2009 (14) SCC 244; Priya Vrat Singh and Ors. v.
Shyam Ji Sahai 2008 (8) SCC 232 : [2008] 11 SCR
897; Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2013 (9)
SCC 293 : [2013] 1 SCR 504 - referred to.
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 925
Case Law Reference A
[1977) 3 SCR 113 referred to Para 21
(1992) Suppl. 1 sec 335 relied on Para 22
[2002) 1 SCR 275 referred to Para 23
120091 14 sec 244 referred to Para24 B
[2008) 11 SCR 897 referred to · Para 25
[2013) 1 SCR 504 referred to Para 35
CRlMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
577 of2017. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2016 of the High Court
ofJudicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 34752 of2016.
Jayant K. Sud, Honey Khanna, Karunakar Mahalik, Ajay P. Tushir,
Ms. Rumi Chandna., Advs. for the Appellants.
D
Anil Kumar, Nar Hari Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSH,\N, J. 1. This a,ppeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 16.12.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad dismissing the Application filed by the appellants under Section E
482 Cr.P.C. Appellants had filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for quashing the judgment and order dated 03.08.2016 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-N, Moradabad summoning the
appellants for an offence under Section 452, 376(d) and 323 IPC, as
well as order dated 22.10.2016 passed by the District Sessions Judge,
F
Moradabad dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellants. The
appellants shall hereinafter be referred to as accused and respondent
No.2 as complainant. The facts of the case as emerged from the records
need to be noted for deciding the issues raised in this appeal.
2. The accused have made several financial transactions with G
complainant, Smt. Rekha Rani, her husband, Akhilesh Kumar and her
son,Ankur in the months of May, 2015. Accused No.-3 gave Rs.9 lakh to
husband and son of the complainant for business purposes. An amount
of Rs.7 lakh 50 thousand was given in cash to complainant and her
husband by accused No.I. Further, husband of complainant received
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A Rs.3 lakh 60 thousand in cash and Rs.2 lakh 40 thousand by cheque
dated 29.05.2015 from accused No.I.
3. An agreement dated 29.05.2015 was signed by the husband of
the complainant and accused No. I acknowledging the payment ofRs.3
lakh 60 thousand in cash and Rs.2 lakh 40 thousand by cheque. A cheque
B of Rs.6 lakh was handed over by the husband of the complainant to
accused No. l to ensure the re-payment. Another agreement between
the complainant and accused No.l was entered into on 01.06.2015
wherein it was acknowledged that complainant and her husband had
taken R:s. 7 lakh 50 thousand in cash from accused No. l. Earlier, husband
of complainant took Rs.6 lakh from accused No. I. Parties entered into
c an agreement agreeing with certain conditions. Third agreement was
entered into between the son of complainant and accused No. I on
31.08.2015 wherein son of complainant acknowledged that his parents
have taken an amount ofRs.14 lakh 50 thousand. Complainant and her
husband gave cheques ofRs.6 lakh and Rs.8 lakh 50 thousand to accused
D No. I drawn on Prathama Bank, Kanth Branch, District Moradabad for
recovery of the amount given by the accused. Agreement noticed that
the amount was borrowed with promise to return the amount. The
agreements were written on Non-Judicial Stamp Papers which were
not registered but contained signatures of the parties mentioned therein.
E 4. Accused No.3 filed a complaint under Section 13 8 ofNegotiable
Instruments Act being Complaint No.1587/2015 against husband and
son of the complainant with the allegation that amount ofRs.9 lakh was
paid to the opposite parties who had issued a cheque of Rs.9 lakh with
the assurance that the amount will be repaid by 22.08.2016. It was stated
by accused No.3 in the complaint that after lapse of time when the
F amount was not paid, the cheque was deposited which was returned
back by the Bank with remark "No Sufficient Balance". When the
opposite parties were contacted in this regard, the opposite parties told
not come to them. After giving a notice on 05.09.2016, complaint was
filed on 21.09.2015. Accused No.I had also filed an Application on
G 29.09.2015 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the complainant, her
husband and son. Cheque given by son of the complainant of Rs.6 lakh
to accused No.2 was also dishonoured. Complaint filed by accused No. I
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was registered as
Complaint No.3280/2015. Complaints against complainant, her husband
and son were filed in the month of September, 2015 alleging dishonoured
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 927
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
of cheque and complaint of non-payment of amount given to the A
complainant and her husband and son.
5. On 30.10.2015 complainant filed an Application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. against all the three accused alleging commission of
offence under Section 376(d),323 and 452 IPC. In the application
allegation was made against the accused that on 22.10.2015 at about B
7.30 p.m. all the three accused came to the house of the complainant. At
that time she was alone in the house. It was alleged that all the three
accused started misbehaving with her. They beat her with stick, fist and
kick. Thereafter, accused, Vineet and N itendra raped her one by one
while Sonu stood outside the room. When Sonu told them about arrival
of complaint's husband, all the three accused fled away. It was further C
alleged that she went to the Police Station on the same day but the
Police did not register FIR. An order dated 03.11.2015 was passed by
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Moradabad for registration
and investigation to the concerned Police Station. On 06.11.2015, the
First Information Report was registered being No.251/2015 at Police D
Station Kanth, District Moradabad under Section 376(d), 323, 452 IPC
against the accused. After registration of the case, crime was investigated
by Investigating Officer(IO). The IO recorded the statements of
complainant, her husband and mother-in-law. Complainant in her
statement repeated her allegation. It was further stated that she went
along with her husband to Police Station but report was not lodged. On E
next day, she went to Government Hospital, Moradabad with her husband
for medical examination. Doctor conducted medical examination to
external injuries but refused to her internal examination. Husband and
father-in-law of the complainant also recorded statements. They stated
that before they arrived at the house, accused had already fled away. F
IO asked the complainant "as to whether now she is ready to get done
medical examination", husband of the complainant answered "no, now
there is no benefit out of medical examination. Now, I don't want to get
my wife's medical examination done as much time has been elapsed".
When the husband was also asked some questions to get her wife
medically examined following answers were given by the husband: G
"Question - Now get the medical examination of hour wife
done so that D.N.A. etc. proceeding could be done?
Ans.- This occurrence is of 22.10.2015 in the evening at 19.30
hrs. and since then till now I have also have sexual intercourse H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A with my wife several times. Thus, now there is no benefit out
of medical examination and instead I myself will be positive. "
6. Before the IO, complainant, her husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law all stated that at the time of occurrence there was no
electricity.
B 7. The accused also recorded statement of various persons in
support of the claim of the accused that at the time alleged by the
complainant they were not present and till 9 p.m. they were with their
friends in Dushehara Mela; IO recorded the statement of certain persons
.who stated that accused were with them till 9 p.m. on 22.10.2015.
c 8. Although, the complainant and her husband refused medical
examination when they are so asked by IO on 07.11.2015, but she got
her medical examination done on 20. I 1.2015. Pathology Report (filed at
page 50 of paper book) stated as : "No spermatozoa alive or dead are
seeing the received smears within sealed envelope''.
D 9. On 24.11.2015 complainant got her statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the statement the age of complainant was recorded
as 47 years. In the statement the complainant repeated her allegations.
10. After statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, IO
carried out detailed investigation by recording statements of brother of
E complainant's husband and his wife. Along with the complainant, the
brother of her husband as well as his wife were also staying in the same
house at the relevant time. The IO recorded the statement Of Nikesh
Kumar, brother of complainant's husband. It is useful to extract below
the statement of brother of complainant's husband as recorded by the
F
IO:
"Statement of Shri NikeshKumar son of Subhash Chandra
Vishnoi resident of Mahalia Vishanpura, Kasha Kanth is
present. Upon enquiry has stated that on 22.10.15 there was
Dushehara Mela. I alongwith my children had gone to see
Mela(Fair) and had returned back to my house at 5.00-5.30
G
p.m. Rekha Rani is my real Bhabhi (sister-in-law). There has
been monetary tran~action between Akhilesh and Vineet. Time
to time my brother used to borrow a sum of Rs.Two lakh. four
lakh from Vineet and used to invest the same in his business
and then used to return. Now there has been inter-se dispute
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 929
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
among them owing to monetary transaction. On this dispute A
my sister-in-law Rekha has instituted case against Vineet and
others. It is not good to mention such shameful facts and my
sister-in-law has not done good. There are young children in
the family and there would be wrong effect of these facts. I
have spade my brother Akhilesh and father have also scolded
B
him. Now he is saying that mistake has been committed and
whatever has occurred has occurred. I _and my wife have gone
to Court. Moradabad and have submitted our affidavit in the
Court. We have mentioned the correct fact therein. We will
tell the same fact in the Court that no such ocourrence has
taken place in our house. My Bhabhi Rekha has lodged a c
cdse in the Court out of anger which is a false case."
11. The wife ofNikesh Kumar, Smt. BinaVishnoi also made the
following statement before the IO which is the part of the Case Diary:
"Statement of Smt.Bina Vishnoi w/o Nikesh Kumar resident
of Mahalia Vishanpura Kasha and P.S. Kanth is present. D
Vpon enquiry, she has stated that on 22.10.15 there was
Dushehara festival and we after seeing Dushehara Mela had
returned back and came at our house at about 5.00 p.111. I
had opened my shop. I have a grocery shop. Most of
transaction takes place in the evening. Rekha is my elder E
real Jethani. My Jeth Akhilesh has monetary transaction with
Vineet and others. He used to borrow money Rs. Two lakh,
four lakh from Vineet to invest th.e same in his business and
the returns the same. Now what has happened I do not know
and inter-se dispute has cropped· up among them and my
Jethpni has taken such a wroi1g siep which does not happens F
in our house. Our family and the family of Vineei are the
respected family of Mahalia and we have business and trade
of lakh of rupees. We have spade an scolded them. Our
children are also growing to be young. When you people visit
•
it has effect on them. Now they are realising the mistake. No G
occurrence of rape etc. has happened in ou1· house and in
this regard the complete Mahalia will tender evidence. I have
even appeared in the Court and submitted an affidavit and
will tell the tr~e fact in the Court.
H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A Question- On 22.10.15 in the evening at 7.30 p.m. you were
present at your room/shop the whether you have heard any
cry or had seen Vineet coming or going?
Ans. - On 22.10.15 since 5.00 p.m. we were at our house and
110 one had come in our house and Rekha has informed us.
8 No such occurrence of rape could take place in our house.
You could enquire from our all neighbours. "
12. The affidavits were also given by Nikesh Kumar and Smt.
Bina Vishnoi who were residing in the same house. Smt. Bina Vishnoi is
also running a shop of General Store in one portion of the house. She
c stated that on the date of occurrence Rekha Rani was in her parental
house to celebrate Dushehara and was not present at her house.
13. IO after completion of investigation and after taking into
consideration the materials collected during the investigation came to
the conclusion that no such incident took place on 22.10.2015 as alleged
D by the complainant. Final Report No.40/15 was submitted by the IO on
29.11.2015 which is to the following effect:
"The First Information Report in the above mentioned
incident was registered on 6.11.2015 and the investigation
was taken up by me. After recording the statement of the
E witnesses and inspection of the place of occurrence the
allegation was found to be false by me. Therefore this final
report No.40115 is being submitted for your consideration."
14. After submission of Final Report on 29.11.2015 Police has
also submitted a further report before the Additional Chief Judicial
F
Magistrate for initiating proceeding under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against
the complainant. Respondent No.2 moved Protest Petition dated
07.01.2016. It was allowed by the Addl.CJM on 28.05.2016. An
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before the High Court.
It was allowed and order dated 28.05.2016 was set aside directing the
Magistrate to pass fresh order. The Magistrate passed again order dated
G 03.08.2016 summoned the accused. Revision was filed before the
Sessions Judge against the order dated 03.08.2016 which was dismissed
by order dated 22.10.2016.
15. The accused filed Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
quash the order dated 03.08.2016 and the order passed by the Sessions
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 931
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
Judge. It was prayed by the accused that orders were passed without A
appreciating the evidence and material on records, they deserve to be
set aside and the Protest Petition be rejected. The High Court refused
the prayer for quashing the orders by making the following observations:
"From the perusal of the material on record and looking into
the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no B
offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission
made at the Bar relates to the dispute question of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under Section 482 Cr.PC. at this stage only prima
facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by
Supreme Court in case of R.P Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR C
1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC
(Cr.)426, State of Bihar Vs. R.P Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192
and lastly Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq and another (par JO) 205 SCC (Cr.) 283. The
disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this o
stage."
16. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the High Court this appeal
has been filed.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that criminal
proceedings initiated by the complainant in the facts of the present case E
was malajide and falsely initiated to save complainant, her husband and
son from making repayment of the amount taken by them with regard to
which complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by
the accused were already filed and pending. After registration of case
on Application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., F
the IO conducted thorough investigation by recording the statements of
complainant, her husband as well as husband's brother and brother's
wife. Various affidavits were also received by the IO and after conducting
investigation there was sufficient materials to come to the conclusion
that a story of alleged rape was wholly false and no such incident had
taken place as alleged by the complainant. He has submitted a Final G
Report in the case which ought to have been accepted by the learned
Magistrate. It is contended that Protest Petition has been allowed without
adverting to the material collected by the IO. The fact that the Application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself was filed after 8 days of alleged
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 6 S.C.R.
A rape, there is no medical report to prove the alleged rape, these were
sufficient to discard the allegations made by the complainant. Summoning
of the accused of such serious offence cannot be a mechanical exercise
in the facts and circumstances of the case and material collected during
investigation which were part of the Final Report were requireq to be
adverted to by the Court while rejecting the Final Report. Learned counsel
B
submits that prosecution in the present case is a clear abuse of the process
of the Court and deserves to be set aside in exercise .of jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 refuting
the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants contended
c that no error has been committed by the Courts below in summoQing the
accused, there was statement under Section· 164 Cr.P.C. of the
complainant where she reiterated her case of rape by accused No. I and
3. It is submitted that at this stage the Court was not required to marshal
the evidence and examine the charge on merit and the High Court has
D rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
the criminal proceedings.
19. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and
perused the records.
20. Before we enter into the facts of the present case it is necessary
E to consider the ambit and scope ofjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent power
of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. ·
F 21. This Court time and again has examined scope ofjurisdiction
of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles
which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka
vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699,held that the High
G Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that
allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court or that the ends ofjustice require that the proceeding ought to
be quashed. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following has been stated:
"7... .ln the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court
is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 933
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse A
of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require
that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the
High Court '.s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which
is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
B
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a
criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,
the very nature of the material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in
quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends
ofjustice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice c
has got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the object
and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent
powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and
0
its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width
and contours of that salient jurisdiction."
22. The judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and others
vs. Bllajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has elaborately
considered the scope and ambit.of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Although in the
above case this Court was considering the power ofti1e High Court to E
quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR, the case arose
out of an FIR registered under Section 161, 165 !PC and Section 5(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. This Court elaborately considered
the scope of Section 482 CR.P.C./ Article 226 in the context of quashing
the proceedings in criminal investigation. After noticing various earlier F
pronouncements of this Court, this Court enumerated certain Categories
of cases by. way of illustration where power under 482 .Cr.P.C. can be
exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or secure ends of
justice. Paragraph 102 which enumerates 7 categories of cases where
power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are extracted as
follows: G
"102; In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and· of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible lo lay down any
B
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report
c or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any. accompanying the FIR do not disclose
D a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
E 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 FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
F 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 of which no
G prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion 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 which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 935
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a A
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused B
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."
23. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka vs. M.
Devenderappa and another, 2002 (3) SCC 89, had occasion to
consider the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. By analysing the scope of c
Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court laid down that authority of the Court
exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice the Court has power to prevent
abuse. It further held that 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 D
serve the ends of justice. Following was laid down in paragraph 6:
"6...... 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 E
on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere
videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potesi (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. F
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised 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 G
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power
to prevent ·abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court
to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A promotion 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 nu offence is disclosed by the complaint. the
court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
B
sought tu 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. "
c Further in paragraph 8 following was stated:
"8 .... .Judicial process should nut be an instrument of
oppression, 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
D hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass
any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an
insl/ument 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
E categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its
power under it relating tu 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
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. "
F 24. In Sunder Babu and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2009
(14) SCC 244, this Court was considering the challenge to the order of
the Madras High Court where Application was under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A !PC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was contended before this Court that
the complaint filed was nothing but an abuse of the process of law and
G allegations were unfounded. The prosecuting agency contested the
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. taking the stand that a bare perusal
of the complaint discloses commission ofalleged offences and, therefore,
· it is not a case which needed to be allowed. The High Court accepted
the case of the prosecution and dismissed the application. This Court
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 937
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
referred to the judgment in Bhajan Lal case (supra) and held that the A
case fell within Category 7. Apex Court relying on Category 7 has hel.d
that Application under Section 482 deserved to be allowed and it quashed
the proceedings.
25. In another case in Priya Vrat Singh and others vs. Shyam
Ji Sahai, 2008 (8) SCC 232, this Court relied on Category 7 as laid B
down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan La/(supra). In the above case
the Allahabad High Court had dismissed an Application filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings under Section 494, 120-B and I 09
IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After noticing the
background facts and parameters for exercise of power under Section
482 Cr.P.C. following was stated. in paragraphs 8 to 12: · c
"8. Further, it is pointed out that the allegation of alleged_
demand for dowry was made for the first time in December
1994. In the complaint filed, the allegation is thatthe dowry
torture was made sometime in 1992. It has not been explained
as to why for more than two years no action was taken. D
9. Further, it appears that in the complaint petition apart
from the husband, the mother of the husband, the subsequently
married wife, husband's mother's sister, husband's brother-
in-law and Sunita 's father were impleaded as party. No role
has been specifically ascribed to anybody except the husband E
and that too of a dowry demand in February 1993 when the
complaint was filed on 6-I2-1994 i.e. nearZv after 22 months.
It is to be noted that in spite of service of notice, none has
appeared on behalf of Respondent 1.
10. The parameters for exercise of power under Section F
482 have been laid down by this Court in several cases.
11. "19. The section does not confer any new power on
the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the
Court possessed before the enactmeni of the Code. It
envisages three circumstances under which the inherent G
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (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 ofjustice. It
is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A rule which would govern the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with
procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise.
Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart ji·om express
provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge
offimctions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is
B
the doctrine which finds expression in the section which
merely recognises and 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
c right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of
justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit,
concedere videtur 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
D
or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though
wide has to be exercised 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
E justice for the administration of which alone courts exist.
Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice
and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It
~~be®~~eef~~~ef~ero~w~w~
action which would result in injustice and prevent
F promotion ofjustice. 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.
G 20. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code are ve1y 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 power is based on sound principles. The
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 939
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate A
prosecution. The 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 been collected
and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
B
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 of quashing the proceeding at
any stage. " c
[See Janata Dal v. HS. Chowdhary, Raghubir Saran (D1:) v.
State of Bihar and Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar, SCC p.
366, paras 19-20.]
12. The present case appears to be one where Category 7 of
the illustrations given in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal is D
clearly applicable.
26. From the material on records, following facts are disclosed
·from the sequence of events which preceded the registration of FIR on
06.11.2015. The complainant, her husband and son had taken different
amounts totalling Rs.22 lakh 50 thousand in the month of May, 2015 for E
business/shop purposes from the accused. Three agreements were
written on Non-Judicial Stamp Papers on 29.05.2015, 01.06.2015 and
31.08.2015 wherein complainant, her husband and son have
acknowledged receipt of the money in cash as well as by cheque.
Cheques of Rs. 6 lakh, Rs.14 lakh 50 thousand were given to accused F
for ensuring the repayment. Cheques were drawn on the Prathama Bank,
Kanth Branch, District Moradabad. Cheques were deposited in the Bank
which were returned with endorsements "No Sufficient Balance". After
cheques having been dishonoured, complaints under Section 13 8 of
Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the accused against the
husband and son of the complainant which were registered in the month G
of September/October and were pending before alleged incident dated
22.10.2015.
27. The complainant alleges rape by the accused on 22.10.2015
at 7.30 p.m. at her house and alleges that on the same day she went to
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 6 S.C.R.
A the Police Station but FIR was not registered. She states that after sending
an application on 26.10.2015 to the SSP, she filed an Application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. There is no medical report
obtained by the complainant except medical report dated 20.11.2015. IO
on 07.11.2015 when asked the complainant to get medical examination
B done, complainant and her husband refused. The incident having taken
place on 22.10._20-15 at 7.30 p.m. nothing was done by the complainant
and her husband till 26. l 0.2015 when she alleges the Application was
sent to SSP.
28. During investigation, IO has recorded the statements of brother
of complainant's husband as well as Smt. Bina Vishnoi, the wife of
C · husband's brother who were residing in the same house and have
categorically denied that any incident happened in their house. Both, in
their statements and affidavits have condemned the complainant for
lodging a false report.
29. IO collected affidavits of several persons including affidavits·
D of Nikesh Kumar and Smt. Bina Vishnoi and on collecting the entire
material and visiting the spot IO had come to the conclusion that no such
incident took place and submitted a Final Report dated 29.11.2015. On
29.11.2015 itself, the IO has submitted another report for prosecution of
complainant under Section 1-82 Cr.P.C. for giving false information to
E the Police. .'
30. After submission of Final Report and submissions of Report ..
under Section 182 Cr.P.C. dated 29.11.2015 complainant filed a Protest -
Petition on 07.01.2016.
31. It is true that in the statement under Sectipn 164 Cr. P.C, the
F complainant repeated her allegation. Complainant has also recorded her
age in the statement as 4 7 years.
32. The Magistrate in allowing the Protest Petition 9nly considered
the submission made by the State while summoning the accused in
paragraph 6 which is to the following effect:
G
"6. In compliance with the order passed by the Hon 'ble High
Court and from the perusal of evidence and entire case diary
this Court comes to the conclusion that the complainant is
required to be registered as police c8mplainant and there are
sufficient grounds to summon the accused Vinit Kumar, Sonu
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 941
· [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
and Nitendra for their trial under Section 376D, 323 and A
352 of Indian Penal Code. "
33. Learned Sessions Judge has also affirmed order taking note
of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
34. There was sufficient material on record to indicate that there
were financial transactions between the accuseµ and complainant, her B
husband and son. On dishonour of cheques issued by the complaint's
husband and son proceedings under Section· 13 8 of Negotiable
Instruments Act were already initiated by the accused. All family members
of the complainant were living in the same house. Brother of husband
and his wife, in their statements before the IO have admitted monetary c
transactions of his brother with the accused. The statements before the
IO of both the Nikesh Kumar and Smt. Bina Vishnoi have already been
extracted above, which were part of the Case Diary and was material
which ought to have been looked into which was submitted by the IO in
the Fiqal Report.
D
35. The fact is that no medical.examination was got done on the
date of incident or even on the next day or on 07.11.2015, when IO
asked the complainant and her husband to get done the medical
examination. Subsequently it was done on 20.11.2015, which was wholly
irrelevant. Apart from bald assertions by the complainant that all accused
have raped, there was nothing which could have led the Courts to form E
an opinion that present case is fit a case of prosecution which ought to
be launched. We are conscious that statement given by the prosecutrix/
complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly brushed away
but the statement was required to be considered along with antecedents,
facts and circumstances as noted above. Reference to the judgment of F
this Court in Prashant Bhartivs. State(NCT of Delhi), 2013 (9) SCC
293, is relevant for the present case. In the above case the complainant
lady aged 21 years lodged an FIR under Section 328 and 354 !PC with
regard to the incident dated 15.02.2007. She sent a telephonic.information
on 16.02.2007 and on her statement FIR under Sections 328 and 354
IPC was registered against the appellant. After a lapse of five days on G
21.02.2007 she gave a supplementary statement alleging rape by the
appellant on 23 .12.2006, 25.12.2006 and 01.01.2007. Statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix was recorded. Police filed charge-
sheet under Section 328, 324 and 376 IPC. ~harge-sheet although
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A mentioned that no proofin support of crime under Section 328/354 could
be found. However, on the ground of statement made under Section 164
Cr.P.C. charge-sheet was submitted. Paragraph 10 of the judgment which
notes the charge-sheet is as follows:
" JO. On 28.6.2007, the police filed a chargesheet under
B Sections 328,354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In the
chargesheet, it was clearly mentioned, that the police
investigation, from different angles, had not yielded any
positive result. However, the chargesheet was based on the
statement made by the complainant/prosecuterix before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under Section· 164 of the
c Code of Criminal Procedure, which was found to be sufficient
for the charges alleged - against the appellant-accused. A
relevant extract of the chargesheet depicting the aforesaid
factual position, is being reproduced below:-
"/ the Inspecto1; tried my best ji-om all angles to recover
D the intoxicating substance/Pepsi/Pepsi glass and
undergarments worn at the time of the rape. But nothing
could be recovered and for this reason, the blood sample
of accused could not be sent to FSL. As from the
investigation so far conducted, no proof could be found
E in support of the crime under Section 328/354 !PC and even
the position of accused Prashant Bharti is not available at
Lodhi Colony at the date and time as his mobile phone ill.
However, prosecuterix Priya Porwal made statement on
21.2.2007 and on 27.2.2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
which is sufjicient in support of his chullan for the offence
F under Section 376 IPC."
(emphasis supplied)"
36. Writ petition was filed by the accused for quashing the FIR
which was dismissed by the High Court on 27.08.2007. Ther,eafter,
charges were framed on 01.12.2008. Dissatisfied with the framing of
G charges Criminal Revision Petition was filed which was dismissed by
Delhi High Cort on 16.01.2009. The order of Additional Sessions Judge
has been extracted by this Court in paragraph 14 which is quoted below:
"14. Dissatisfied with the action of the trial Court in ji-aming
charges against him, the appellant-accused filed Criminal
H
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 943
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
Revision Petition no. 08 of 2009, whereby he assailed the A
order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, New Delhi. The Delhi High Court dismissed the
revision petition on 16.1.2009, by inter alia observing as
under:-
"12. Truthfulness or falsity of the allegations, essentially B
pertains to the realm of evidence and the same cannot be pre-
judged at this initial stage. I do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned orde1: Consequently, this Revision
Petition is dismissed in limine while making it clear that
anything herein shall not be construed as an opinion on merits
at trial. "" c
3 7. The appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment of the
High Court by the accused contending that there was sufficient material
collected in the investigation which proved that allegations were unfounded
and the prosecution of the appellant was an abuse of process of the
Court. In paragraph 23 this Court noted several circumstances on the D
basis of which this Court held that judicial conscience of the High Court
ought to have persuaded it to quash the criminal proceedings. This Court
further noticed that Investigating Officer has acknowledged, that he could
not find any proof to substantiate the charges. The charge-sheet had
been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix E
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment
following was stated:
"24. Most importantly, as against the aforesaid allegations,
no pleadings whatsoever have been filed by the complainant.
Even during the course of hearing, the material relied upon F
by the accused was not refuted. As a matter of fact, the
complainantlprosecutrix had herself approached the High
Court, with the prayer that the first information lodged by
her, be quashed. It would therefore be legitimate to conclude,
in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the material
relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the G
complainantlprosecutrix. Even in the charge sheet dated
28. 6.2007, (extracted above) the investigating officer has
acknowledged, that he could not find any proof to substantiate
the charges. The charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R.
A of the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix under Section
164 of the Cr.P.C.
25. Based on the holistic consideration of the facts and
circumstances summarized in the foregoing two paragraphs;
we are satisfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in
B Rajiv Thapar s case (supra) stand - satisfied. All the steps
can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have
no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial
conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on
the basis of the material available before it, while passing the
impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
c against the accused-appellant, in exercise of the inherent
powers vested with it under Section 482 of the Cr.P. C.
Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove,
we are satisfied, that the first information report registered
under Sections 328. 354and 376 of the Indian Penal Code
D against the appellant-accused, and the consequential
chargesheet dated 28.6.2007, as also the framing of charges
by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1.12.2008,
deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed. "
38. Thus, above was the case where despite statement under
E Section 164 Cr.P.C. by prosecutrix the Court referring to mate.rial
collected during investigation had held that the case was fit where the
High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings.
39. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In
F case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with
some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very
threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case
falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. Judicial proct;ss is a solemn
proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument
G of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with ma/a fide and proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not
hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana
H vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
. ·-· .:_
VINEET KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 945
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]
"(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with A
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 to spite him due to private and personal
grudge. "
. Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. B
Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of the State ofHaryana
v~. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present
case, materials on which Final Report was submitted by the 10. We,
thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where.High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and
quashed the criminal proceedin~s.
c
40. In the result, appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court
dated 16.12.2016 as well as the order of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate dated 03.08.2016 and the order of the Sessio_ns Judge dated
22.10.2016 including the entire criminal proceedings are quashed.
D
Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 482 CrPC"Sign in to search