SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 7 May 2019

SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS

v.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU

(Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2019)

MAY 07, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.340 – In a sexualharassment case against the appellants, the appellants filedanticipatory bail applications along with Vakalatnama before theMadurai High Court – While filing the Vakalatnama, it was statedtherein that it was signed by appellants before their counsel on17.08.2016 at Madurai – Challenging the maintainability of bailpetition and Vakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminaryobjection and submitted that the Vakalatnama bore signature dated18.08.2016, however, the first appellant had left for Singapore fromNew Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours and third appellant hadleft for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 9.30 AM –High Court directed the appellants to appear before the Court on29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regard to saidpreliminary objection – Accordingly appellants appeared and statedthat the date mentioned in the Vakalatnama was an inadvertentmistake – High Court found the explanation unsatisfactory andheld that the document appeared to be forged and was signed andexecuted outside Madurai and directed the Registrar (Judicial) tolodge the complaint against the appellants – Accordingly, complaintwas lodged against the appellants under ss.193, 466, 468 and 471IPC – Aggrieved appellants filed instant appeals – Held: There couldbe no two views about the proposition that even if forgery wascommitted outside the precincts of the court and long before itsproduction in the court, it would also be treated as one affectingthe administration of justice – But in the instant case, theVakalatnama filed by the appellants seeking anticipatory bail couldnot be said to be a forged document – Appellants had admittedtheir signatures in the Vakalatnama and had taken plea that it wasmistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai –Explanation tendered by the appellants appeared plausible – Fraud

319

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aimplies intentional deception aimed of achieving some wrongful gainor causing wrongful loss or injury to another – Intention being themens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has beenplayed upon the court – High Court was not justified in terming thesaid mistake or error as fraud – The direction to lodge criminalcomplaint against the appellants is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –Bs.195(1)(b).

Penal Code, 1860: s.195(1)(b) – Prosecution under – Held:Under s.340, the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedientin the interest of justice and not in every case – Before proceedingto make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referredCto in s.195(1)(b), the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient inthe interest of justice” – The language in s.340 Cr.P.C. shows thatsuch a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requiresand not in every case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340.

Disposing of the appeals, the CourtD

HELD : 1.1 It is fairly well settled that before lodging ofthe complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfiedthat it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge thecomplaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actualwords of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a findingEindicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest ofjustice that an enquiry should be made. [Para 10] [325-G-H;326-A]

Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4SCC 370 : [2005] 2 SCR 708 – relied on.F

2. It appeared from the vakalatnama that appellants No.1and 3 signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016; butactually the first appellant did not visit Madurai and left forSingapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 at 11.15 PM. In theaffidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court, the firstGappellant took the plea that it was a clerical error. AppellantNo.1 stated that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellant No.2signed the vakalatnama in New Delhi and that the same was signedthrough appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru. It was stated thatafter receiving the vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Maduraion the same day evening by road and handed over the same toH

the lawyer and returned back to Bengaluru by road on the sameday and thereafter, appellant No.3 left for Singapore in the morningof 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. According to the appellants, whenthe vakalatnama was filed in the High Court of Madras at MaduraiBench, it was mistakenly recorded that it was signed on18.08.2016 in Madurai. The explanation given by the appellantsappeared plausible and there was no reason to disbelieve thesame and their affidavit dated 29.08.2016. [Para 15] [328-C-F]

3. A vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes anadvocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it hasno bearing on the merits of the case. There is no reason as towhy a party would deliberately furnish a false date and place inthe vakalatnama. The appellants have admitted their signaturesin the vakalatnama. The sequence of events as stated in theaffidavit of the appellants did not make out a case of forgery. TheHigh Court did not record any finding as to why it rejected theplea of the appellants made in the affidavit which was alsoreiterated by them in their explanation before the court whenthey personally appeared before the court. [Para 16] [328-F-G;329-B]

4. There could be no two views about the proposition thateven if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the courtand long before its production in the court, it would also be treatedas one affecting the administration of justice. But in the instantcase, the vakalatnama filed by the appellants seeking anticipatorybail cannot be said to be a forged document. The appellants haveadmitted their signatures in the vakalatnama. They only allegethat it was mistakenly recorded that it was signed on 18.08.2016at Madurai in the presence of the advocate. Of course, the versionin the vakalatnama was an incorrect statement. The High Courtwas not justified in terming the said mistake or error as fraud.Fraud implies intentionally deception aimed at achieving somewrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another. Inthe absence of any material to substantiate the allegations, theHigh Court was not justified in accusing the appellants fraud.Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama was wrong,mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amountto create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aexercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuanceof direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.There is no prima facie evidence to show that the appellants hadintended to cause damage or injury or any other acts. Since thedisputed version in the vakalatnama appears to be an inadvertentmistake with no intention to make misrepresentation, theBdirection of the High Court to lodge a criminal complaint againstthe appellants cannot be sustained and the same is liable to beset aside. [Paras 18, 19, 21] [329-F-H; 330-A-B; D-E; 331-C-D]

Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017)1 SCC 117 ; Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P.C(2018) 6 SCC 15 – relied on.

Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special JudgeMagistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 ; CentralBureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IASand Another (2006) 7 SCC 188:[2006] 4 Suppl.DSCR 450 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealFNo. 855 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature of Madras, Madurai Bench in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 15370of 2016.

WithG

Criminal Appeal Nos. 856, 857, 858, 859 of 2019.

Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Nithin Saravanan, B. Ramaswamy,Ms. Arunima Singh, Ms. Pranjal Kishore, Ms. Priyadarshini, D. AbhinavRao,Advs. for the Appellants.

H

M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi, S. Raja Rajeshwaran, Advs.for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals [SLP(Crl.) Nos.7252, 7287 and 8206 of 2016]arise out of the judgment dated 14.09.2016 passed by the Madurai Benchof Madras High Court dismissing anticipatory bail application in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 filed by the appellants. By the samejudgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed theRegistrar (Judicial) to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional policestation against the appellants with respect to the alleged forgery committedby them in signing the vakalatnama. Pursuant to the direction of theHigh Court, the Registrar (Judicial) lodged a complaint with K. PudurPolice Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016, on the basis of which, FIR inCrime No.1331/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193,466, 468 and 471 IPC was registered against the appellants.

3. The first appellant was the then Member of Rajya Sabha andexpelled Member of AIADMK Political Party. The third appellant isthe husband of the first appellant. A complaint was filed by one Banumathiwho was then working as maid in the house of the appellants in the year2011 alleging that she was sexually harassed while she was working inthe house of the appellants. Based on the said complaint, a criminalcase was registered against all the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 in AllWomen’s Police Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354(A) and506(i) IPC and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition ofHarassment of Women Act, 2002. The first appellant denied all theallegations and claimed that the same was result of political vendettaagainst her.

4. The appellants filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 against the said offences before theMadurai Bench of Madras High Court along with vakalatnama bearingthe signature of appellants No.1 and 3 dated 18.08.2016. The firstappellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016. While filingbail application in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016, the appellants filedvakalatnama wherein it was stated that the said vakalatnama was signedby the appellants before Advocate Mr. Vijaykumar on 17.08.2016 atMadurai. Challenging the maintainability of the bail petition and the A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Avakalatnama, the respondent-State filed preliminary objections andsubmitted that appellant No.1 had left for Singapore from New Delhi on17.08.2016 at 23.15 hours. Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singaporefrom Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. It was alleged that theappellants filed anticipatory bail application on 18.08.2016 as if they werepresent in Madurai on 17.08.2016 and signed the affidavit andBvakalatnama in the presence of an advocate at Madurai. The HighCourt vide order dated 23.08.2016 directed the appellants to appearbefore the court on 29.08.2016 and to give their explanation with regardto the said preliminary objection. Accordingly, the appellants appearedbefore the court on the said date and submitted their affidavit before theCHigh Court stating that the date mentioned in the vakalatnama was aninadvertent mistake.

5. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that theexplanations given by the appellants are not satisfactory and the same iscontradictory to the written version as contained in the vakalatnama.DReferring to the affidavit filed by the appellants, the High Court pointed out that appellant No.1 has given explanation that she never came toMadurai for signing the vakalatnama and that she had never signed thevakalatnama in the presence of advocate Mr. Vijaykumar at Madurai.The learned Single Judge therefore held that prima facie, it appears thatthe document has been forged and the same has been signed andEexecuted outside Madurai and produced before this court as though, ithas been signed and executed at Madurai and the same has been utilizedand filed before the High Court. On the above findings, the High Courtdirected the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge the complaint against theappellants with the jurisdictional police station. Pursuant to the directionFof the High Court, the Registrar (Judicial) lodged a complaint with K.Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016. Based on the complaintlodged by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, FIR in CrimeNo.1331/2016 was registered with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on19.09.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 466, 468and 471 IPC.G

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals. Bythe order dated 26.09.2016, the Supreme Court directed that no coerciveaction be taken against the appellants in Crime No.1331/2016 and alsoin Crime No.5/2016 and granted interim protection to the appellants fromarrest.H

7. It has been urged by Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants that the High Court erred in not consideringthe fact that the vakalatnama contains the signature of the appellantsand that the date thereon is a purely clerical error. It was submitted thatthe High Court has not recorded a finding to the effect that it is ‘expedientin the interest of justice’ to lodge a complaint against the appellants andthe High Court erred in issuing directions to lodge the complaint to thepolice for registering criminal case against the appellants. Further, it wascontended that the High Court also erred in law in treating the vakalatnamafiled by the appellants as the main reason for dismissing the anticipatorybail application.

8. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the State ofTamil Nadu submitted that the High Court has categorically found thatthe first appellant has not signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 18.08.2016and therefore, the appellants have committed fraud upon the court andthe High Court rightly issued directions to the Registrar for lodgingcomplaint against the appellants. The learned counsel further submittedthat the first appellant being the then Member of Parliament and herhusband-the third appellant being a businessman and influential personare not cooperating with the investigation and the first appellant hasgiven evasive reply to the questions raised by the Investigation Officer.It was submitted that no grounds are made out for setting aside thedirections issued by the High Court and for quashing of the FIR No.1331/2016 registered on the directions of the High Court. The learned counselplaced reliance upon Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State ofBihar and another (1998) 2 SCC 493.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused theimpugned judgment and other materials placed on record. The pointfalling for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the court was right in issuing directions to lodge the complaintagainst the appellants before the concerned police station for forgeryand for creation of forged document.

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it isnecessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in theinterest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that thecourt must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the courtshould record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing thatunder Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it isexpedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or tovindicate personal vendetta, In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. MeenakshiMarwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, this Court held as under:- B“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the courtis not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of anoffence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section isconditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient inthe interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will beadopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in everyCcase. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold apreliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it isexpedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be madeinto any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). Thisexpediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing notDthe magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by suchforgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect orimpact, such commission of offence has upon administration ofjustice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery maycause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sensethat it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status orEthe like, but such document may be just a piece of evidenceproduced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidencemay have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidenceon the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal.In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in Fthe interest of justice to make a complaint. …...”

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commissionof an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court mustsatisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The languagein Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only ifGthe interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen inthe facts and circumstances of the present case whether any primafacie case is made out for forgery or making a forged documentwarranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

H

SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU[R. BANUMATHI, J. ]

12. Based on the complaint of one Banumathi for the allegedharassment, a case in Crime No.5/2016 under Sections 294(b), 323, 344,354-A and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition ofHarassment of Women Act, 2002 was registered against the appellants.Appellant No.1 filed anticipatory bail application No.1627/2016 beforethe High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi vide order dated11.08.2016 granted interim protection to the appellants and directed theappellants to avail the remedy before the court of competent jurisdictionin the State of Tamil Nadu or the High Court of Madras. The High Courtof Delhi directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellantsin FIR No.5/2016 till 22.08.2016 subject to their joining the investigationas and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

13. Pursuant to the order of the High Court of Delhi, the appellantsfiled anticipatory bail application before the High Court of Madras atMadurai Bench in Bail Application No.15370/2016 on 18.08.2016. Inthe said application, preliminary objection was raised by the State alleging“that the appellants have played fraud on the court by filing a vakalatnamasigned by them on 17.08.2016 attested by an advocate from Madurai asif appellants No.1 and 3 were present in Madurai on 17.08.2016 whereasappellant No.1 left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016”. Thethird appellant left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016. Allegingthat they have filed false vakalatnama, the respondent-State raisedobjection for maintainability of the petition. In the meanwhile, on22.08.2016, the Investigating Officer included Section 9(I)(n) read withSection 10, Section 16 read with Section 17 of Protection of Childrenfrom Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.5/2016.

14. The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application anddeclined to grant pre-arrest bail in Crime No.5/2016. The High Courtheld that the first appellant never came to Madurai for signing thevakalatnama in the presence of advocate Vijaykumar and therefore,prima facie it appears that the document has been forged and the samehas been signed and executed outside Madurai as though it has beensigned and executed at Madurai and the same has been utilized by theappellants before the court. Placing reliance upon Sachida Nand Singh,the High Court observed that the act committed by the appellants amountto fraud played upon the court and thus, directed the Registrar (Judicial)to lodge a complaint against all the appellants who signed the vakalatnamain Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A15. In the present appeals, we are mainly concerned with thefindings of the High Court that by filing the vakalatnama in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15370/2016, the appellants have played fraud upon the court and theissuance of the direction to the Registrar (Judicial) to lodge the complaintagainst the appellants for forgery. As pointed out earlier, the appellantshave filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016 on 18.08.2016 in which theyBhave filed the vakalatnama wherein it had been stated as under:- “Executed before me this 17[th] day of August, 2016. Before me,S. Vijaykumar, No.51 law Chambers, High Court Madurai.”

The above version in the vakalatnama looks as if appellants No.1Cand 3 have signed the vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016; but actuallythe first appellant did not visit Madurai and left for Singapore from NewDelhi on 17.08.2016 at 11.15 PM. It is pertinent to note that in theaffidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court on 29.08.2016, thefirst appellant has taken the plea that there has been a clerical error.Appellant No.1 has stated that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellantDNo.2 signed the vakalatnama in New Delhi and that the same was signedthrough appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru. It is stated that afterreceiving the vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Madurai on the sameday evening by road and handed over it to the lawyer and returned backto Bengaluru by road on the same day and thereafter, appellant No.3 leftEfor Singapore in the morning of 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM. According tothe appellants, when the vakalatnama was filed in the High Court ofMadras at Madurai Bench, it was mistakenly recorded that it has beensigned on 18.08.2016 in Madurai. The explanation given by the appellantsappears to be plausible and we find no reason to disbelieve the same andtheir affidavit dated 29.08.2016.F

16. A vakalatnama is only a document which authorizes anadvocate to appear on behalf of the party and by and large, it has nobearing on the merits of the case. We find force in the contention of thelearned senior counsel for the appellants that there is no reason as towhy a party would deliberately furnish a false date and place in theGvakalatnama. Appellant No.1 left for Singapore from New Delhi on thenight of 17.08.2016 and appellant No.3 left for Singapore from Bengaluruon the morning of 18.08.2016 at 09.30 AM which fact admitted by boththe parties. In the affidavit filed before the High Court, the first appellantclearly stated that she and her son appellant No.2 signed the vakalatnama H

on 16.08.2016 and the same was sent to her husband-appellant No.3who was in Bengaluru who in turn handed over the same to the advocateat Madurai. The appellants have admitted their signatures in thevakalatnama. The sequence of events as stated in the affidavit of theappellants, in our view, do not make out a case of forgery. The HighCourt has not recorded any finding as to why it rejected the plea of theappellants made in the affidavit which has also been reiterated by themin their explanation before the court when they personally appearedbefore the court.

17. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, the learned counsel appearing for the Stateof Tamil Nadu placed reliance upon Sachida Nand Singh and submittedthat even if any offence involving forgery of document is committedoutside the precincts of the court and long before its production in thecourt, the same would also be treated as one affecting the administrationof justice. After referring to various judgments, in Sachida Nand Singh,it was held as under:- “11. The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affectingadministration of justice has been committed in respect of adocument produced in court or given in evidence in a proceedingin that Court. In other words, the offence should have beencommitted during the time when the document was in custodialegis.

12. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involvingforgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts ofthe Court and long before its production in the Court, could alsobe treated as one affecting administration of justice merely becausethat document later reached the court records.”

18. There could be no two views about the proposition that evenif forgery is committed outside the precincts of the court and long beforeits production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting theadministration of justice. But in the present case, the vakalatnama filedby the appellants in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016 seeking anticipatorybail in Crime No.5/2016 cannot be said to be a forged document. Aspointed out earlier, the appellants have admitted their signatures in thevakalatnama. They only allege that it was mistakenly recorded that ithas been signed on 18.08.2016 at Madurai in the presence of the advocate.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AOf course, the version in the vakalatnama is an incorrect statement. Inour opinion, the High Court was not justified in terming the said mistakeor error as fraud. Fraud implies intentionally deception aimed or achievingsome wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another. Intentionbeing the mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud hasbeen played upon the court. The learned counsel for the State hasBsubmitted that upon examination of the signature in the vakalatnama, thehand-writing expert has opined that it is not the signature of the appellantsand therefore, the intention of the appellants to create a forged documenthas been clearly made out. We do not find any merit in the submissionas the appellants themselves admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama.CIn the light of the statement of the appellants admitting their signaturesin the vakalatnama, we do not think that the opinion of the hand-writingexpert would stand on any higher footing. There is nothing on record tosuggest that the appellants gained anything by playing fraud or practisingdeception. In the absence of any material to substantiate the allegations,in our view, the High Court was not justified in accusing the appellantsDfraud.

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong,mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to createa forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising thejurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodgeEthe criminal complaint against the appellants.

20. In Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017)1 SCC 117, this Court held that before proceeding under Section 340Cr.P.C., the court has to be satisfied about the deliberate falsehood on amatter of substance and there must be a reasonable foundation for theFcharge. Observing that some inaccuracy in the statement or mere falsestatement may not invite a prosecution, it was held as under:- “6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statementin a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justifya prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”); but it mustbe shown that the defendant has intentionally given a falsestatement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricatedfalse evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage ofthe judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged G

H

also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in theinterests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of falseevidence and offences against public justice and more specificallyreferred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overallfactual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such aprosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3SCC 178). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry isrequired in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts ofthe case.”

The same view was quoted with approval in Chintamani Malviyav. High Court of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 15.

21. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, in our view, there isno prima facie evidence to show that the appellants had intended tocause damage or injury or any other acts. Since the disputed version inthe vakalatnama appears to be an inadvertent mistake with no intentionto make misrepresentation, in our view, the direction of the High Courtto lodge a criminal complaint against the appellants cannot be sustainedand the same is liable to be set aside.

22. The learned counsel for the State submitted that in CrimeNo.1331/2016, criminal case was registered based on the direction ofthe High Court and upon completion of the investigation, charge sheethas also been filed. As held in Pepsi Foods Limited and another v.Special Judge Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749, summoningof an accused in a criminal case is a serious thing; more so to face a trialin criminal case registered with the direction of the High Court. Sincethe appellants themselves have admitted their signatures in thevakalatnama and the version in the vakalatnama that they have signedat Madurai on 18.08.2016 is an advertent mistake, in our view, even ifthe trial proceeds, there may not be any possibility of the appellantsbeing convicted for the alleged offences of forgery and for making forgeddocument.

23. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi ShankarSrivastava, IAS and Another (2006) 7 SCC 188, it was held as under:- “7. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case ofthis nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does notconfer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apower which the Court possessed before the enactment of theCode. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherentjurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an orderunder the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possiblenor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would governBthe exercise of inherent jurisdiction. …….. In exercise of thepowers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if itfinds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of theprocess of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwiseserve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by theCcomplaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When acomplaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into thematerials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whetherany offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted intoto.”

D24. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in ourview, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the criminalprosecution against the appellants. Without further going into the meritsof the case, we quash the FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 and also quashthe charge sheet pending before the concerned Magistrate. The FIRand the charge sheet are quashed only in the facts and circumstances ofEthe present case and to meet the ends of justice. It is made clear thattaking advantage of quashing of the case, the appellants shall not resortto any further consequential proceedings.

25. Crime No.5/2016:- In the impugned order, the High Courthas declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants. The SupremeFCourt vide order dated 26.09.2016 granted interim protection to theappellants in Crime No.5/2016 registered in All Women’s Police Station,Pudukkottai, Tuticorin district. The learned senior counsel appearing forthe appellants submitted that the appellants have compromised the matterwith the victim Banumathi and that based on the compromise, they haveGalready filed quash petition before the High Court of Madras in whichthe High Court has directed the parties to approach the concerned policestation. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the said matter,except to extend interim protection granted to the appellants in CrimeNo.5/2016 till the disposal of the said case.

26. Crime No.276/2016:- On 11.10.2016, the appellants alongwith other accused are said to have caused damage to the householdarticles and car of one Suganthi who was the advocate for the victim-Banumathi in Crime No.5/2016. Based on the complaint lodged by oneMuthu-a relative of the said Suganthi, a criminal case was registeredagainst the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(II) IPC andunder Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damageand Loss Act, 1992) in Crime No.276/2016 of Thisayanvilai Police Station,Tirunelveli. The appellants have filed the anticipatory bail applicationbefore the High Court and by order dated 18.11.2016, the High Courtgranted anticipatory bail to appellants No.2 and 3 and the learned SingleJudge took the view that custodial interrogation of appellant No.1 isrequired and declined to grant anticipatory bail to appellant No.1. Theorder dated 18.11.2016 is the subject matter of challenge in SLP(Crl.)Nos.9064/2016 and 9065/2016. When the matter came up for admissionbefore this Court, vide order dated 22.11.2016, this Court has grantedinterim protection to appellant No.1. Therefore, case against the appellantswas registered under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss Act,1992) in Crime No.276/2016 (Thisayanvilai, Thirunelveli). The HighCourt declined anticipatory bail to the first appellant by holding that hercustodial interrogation is necessary whereas appellants No.2 and 3 weregranted anticipatory bail.

27. In the result, all the appeals are disposed of as under:-SLP(Crl.)No.7252/2016:- The impugned order of the High Court issuing directionto lodge criminal complaint against the appellants is set aside and theappeal is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,the FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 (K. Pudur Police Station) and the chargesheet filed thereon are quashed and the appeal is allowed accordingly.As pointed out in para No.(23), taking advantage of the quashing of theFIR in Crime No.1331 of 2016, the appellants shall not resort to anyfurther or consequential proceedings.

28. SLP(Crl.) Nos.7287/2016 and 8206/2016:- The interimprotection granted to the appellants in Crime No.5/2016 (AWPS,Pudukkottai, Tuticorin District) is extended till the disposal of the criminalcase arising out of Crime No.5/2016.

A

B

CDE

F

G

334SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A29. SLP(Crl.) Nos.9064/2016 and 9065/2016:- The interimprotection granted to the appellants by the order dated 22.11.2016 inCrime No.276/2016 (Thisayanvilai Police Station, Thirunelveli) isextended till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of Crime No.276/2016. The appellants are granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.276/2016which shall hold good till the disposal of the criminal case. So far asBquashing of criminal case in Crime No.276/2016, the appellants are atliberty to approach the High Court and the High Court shall consider thesame on its own merits.

CDevika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H