Supreme Court laid down Grounds to Exercise Inherent Powers of High Court U/s 482 Cr.PC.

In an important case the Hon’ble Division Bench of Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by appellants and set aside the judgment passed by Jharkhand High Court wherein the Hon’ble High Court have refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction U/s 482 Cr.P.C.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant/respondent no.2 Manisha Poddar filed a complaint on 08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under sections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against all immediate relations of her husband, namely, Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband), Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarried brother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta @ Preeti Agrawal (married sister-in-law). Learned Trial Court took cognizance in the matter and issued summoning order. According to appellants no specific allegation is made against them. The appellants have challenged the same before the High Court stating therein that all of the alleged incident happened either in Kanpur or Mumbai where she lives with her husband and the present appellants never visited the place of incident either Mumbai or Ranchi.

The Hon’ble High Court rejected their petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. stating that “In this context, I may again reiterate that the acts relating to demand or subjecting to cruelty, as per the complaint petition, have been committed at the place where the complainant was living with her husband. However, the complainant in her statement made under solemn affirmation has stated that when she came to Ranchi on the occasion of Holi, all the accused persons came and passed sarcastic remarks which in absence of actual wordings, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could never be presumed to be an act constituting offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”

QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the facts and circumstances of the case?

HON’BLE COURT’s OBSERVATIONS

The Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan while explaining the inherent powers of High Court Under 482 Cr.P.C. observed that

“Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”

Hon’ble court laid emphasis on the scope of inherent powers as accepted in English courts and referred to Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254, Wherein Lord Devlin stated that where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.

Hon’ble court further observed that,

“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. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court’s failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

This court had occasion to examine the legal position in a large number of cases. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.”

The Hon’ble Division Bench further relied upon numerous precedents to explain the scope of inherent powers U/s 482 Cr.P.C. namely:

• State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others (1977) 2 SCC 699
• Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551
• Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692
• State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
• Sagar Suri & Another v. State of UP & Others (2000) 2 SCC 636
• Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Others v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Another (2005) 1 SCC 122
• Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others (2007) 12 SCC 1

The Hon’ble Court further expressing their concern on rising matrimonial disputes observed that,

“The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”

In view of the above, after expressing serious concerns, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

Case Title: Preeti Gupta & anr Vs. State of Jharkhand & Another

Case no.: Criminal Appeal no. 1512 of 2010

Order date: 13.08.2010