CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. on 31 July 2019

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 801

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.

v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2019)

JULY 31, 2019

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND

INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Jurisdiction ofHigh Court – Scope of – Appellants and the Respondent No.2-defacto complainant are apparently close relatives and embroiled in apartition suit filed by the Appellant No.2 – Appellant No.2 also filedcriminal complaint against the de facto complainant – Criminalproceedings being PRC No.2 of 2018 filed against the appellantsu/ss.307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) r/w s.34, IPC – As per theappellants, the respondent no.2 falsely implicated them as counterblast to the criminal complaint filed by the Appellant No.2 – Petitionu/s.482 filed by the appellants for quashing the proceedings in PRCNo.2 of 2018 – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Plenary inherentjurisdiction of the Court u/s.482 of CrPC may be exercised to giveeffect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the processof the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice – However,while exercising such powers, the High Court does not function asa Court of appeal or revision – Power u/s.482 should not beexercised to stifle legitimate prosecution – At the same time, if thebasic ingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, thecriminal proceedings may be quashed u/s.482 – Power to quashthe proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material toproceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in thecomplaint are prima facie accepted as true – In the instant case, theHigh Court rightly found that the allegations in the complaintcoupled with the statements recorded by the Magistrate had thenecessary ingredients of offences u/ss.307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2)r/w s.34, IPC– High Court rightly refused to quash the criminalcomplaint, observing that it can exercise power u/s.482 only in rarecases – Not fit case to quash the criminal proceedings – Penal Code,

801

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A1860 – ss.307, 323, 427, 447, 506(2) r/w s.34 and ss.120B, 420,463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1 The High Court concluded, and rightly, that itwas open to the Appellants to adduce evidence to show that theBAppellants and/or one of the them was not present at the time ofthe alleged offence. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Courtunder Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised to give effect to anorder under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process of theCourt; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Paras 11, 12]C[806-D-E]

Conclusion

1.2 The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive,has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and onlywhen such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid downin the section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessaryDto give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuseof the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends ofjustice. For interference under Section 482, three conditions areto be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of agrave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable andclear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provisionEof law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. Inexercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissiblefor the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only tobe prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, theFCourt can evaluate materials and documents on record, but itcannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materialsproduced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. TheHigh Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliableor not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidenceGthe allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of thetrial Judge. [Paras 13-16] [806-E-H; 807-A-B]

1.3 The High Court may have an obligation to interveneunder Section 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error hasbeen committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despiteH

the fact that the alleged acts did not at all constitute offences.However, while exercising powers under this Section, the HighCourt does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Thepower under Section 482 of CrPC should not be exercised tostifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if the basicingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, thecriminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.It is well settled that where the allegations set out in the complaintor the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open tothe High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section482 of the Code, to quash the order passed by the Magistratetaking cognizance of the offence. The inherent power underSection 482 is intended to prevent the abuse of the process ofthe Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannotbe exercised to do something which is expressly barred underthe Code. [Paras 17-19] [807-C-G]

1.4 In this case, the High Court rightly refused to quashthe criminal complaint, observing that it can exercise power underSection 482 of the CrPC only in rare cases. The power to quashthe proceedings is generally exercised when there is no materialto proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in thecomplaint are prima facie accepted as true. The High Court ineffect found, and rightly, that the allegations in the complaintcoupled with the statements recorded by the Magistrate had thenecessary ingredients of offences under Sections 307, 323, 427,447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC. This is not a fitcase to quash the criminal proceedings. [Paras 23, 24] [810-C-E]

S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Another(2002) 1 SCC 241 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 397 ; S.W.Palanitkar and Ors. v. M.A.A. Annamali v. State ofKarnataka and Another (2010) 8 SCC 524 : [2010]9 SCR 1124 ; Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of BiharAIR 1977 SC 1754 : [1977] 2 SCR 357 ; Smt. Nagawwav. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976SC 1947 : [1976] Suppl. SCR 123 ; Dharampaland Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors. AIR 1993 SC1361 : [1993] 1 SCR 1 – referred to.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AZandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd.Sharful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 : [2004]5 Suppl. SCR 790 ; State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (1992)Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259 ;Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others (1990)Supp SCC 686 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 165 ; State ofBKarnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others (1977) 2 SCC699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1082 of 2019.E

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the Stateof Andhra Pradesh in CRLP No. 9225 of 2018.

K. L. Sastry, K. Srivarshini, I. V. Kashyap, Dr. A. M. KrishnaFand Ms. Aswathi M. K., Advs. for the Appellants.

Guntur Prabhakar, R. Chandrachud, Allanki Ramesh, Ms. ArunaGupta, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Mahfooz A. Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, ZainMaqbool and Avinash Tripathi, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 30[th] August,2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the Stateof Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissing Criminal H

Petition No.9225 of 2018 filed by the appellant under Section 482 of theCriminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) to quash the criminal proceedingsbeing PRC No.2 of 2018 pending against the Appellants in the Court ofthe Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West GodavariDistrict for offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The Appellants and the Respondent No.2, being the de factocomplainant, are apparently close relatives and are embroiled in a partitionsuit being OS No.92 of 2012 filed by the Appellant No.2 in the Court ofAdditional District Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District of AndhraPradesh.

3. The Appellant No.2 had also filed a criminal complaint beingCriminal Complaint No.518 of 2012 against the de facto complainantand others in the Court of the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Narsapur,West Godavari District under Sections 120B, 420, 463, 464, 466, 467,468, 469, 470 and 471 of the IPC.

4. It is the case of the appellants that the de facto complainanthas falsely implicated the Appellants as a counter blast to the CriminalComplaint No. 518 of 2012 filed by the Appellant No.2.

5. The Appellants filed the Criminal Petition No. 9225 of 2018 inthe High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing theproceedings in PRC No.2 of 2018 on the allegation that there were civildisputes pending between the Appellants and the Respondents.

6. The Appellant also contended that an earlier application in theHigh Court under Section 482 of the CrPC being Criminal PetitionNo.13272 of 2014 for quashing CC No.508 of 2012 filed by the appellants,had been allowed by the High Court by an order dated 23[rd] July, 2018.

7. In the complaint filed in the instant case, it is, inter alia, allegedthat the Appellants caused injuries on the body of the de facto complainantand made attempts to hit the de facto complainant on the head and hithim with an iron rod. It is further alleged that the Appellants openlythreatened to kill the de facto complainant.

8. It is the case of the de facto complainant that the attempt tocause injuries on the head, which is a vital organ, could have resulted inthe death of the de facto complaint. The High Court found in effect A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat the allegations in the complaint attracted the offences, punishableunder Sections mentioned in the complaint.

9. The High Court rejected the contention of the Appellants thatthe complaint was lodged as a counter blast, observing that the complaintof the Second Appellant was filed on 28[th] September, 2012 whereas theBinstant complaint was filed on 21[st] July, 2015 that is after almost threeyears.

10. It is the case of the Appellants that the Appellant No.1, who isworking as Lecturer at Hyderabad has falsely been implicated. Whetherthe Appellant No.1 was at Hyderabad when the alleged incident tookplace, or whether the Appellants have falsely been implicated arequestions of fact which have to be decided in the trial by adducingevidence.

C

11. The High Court concluded, and rightly, that it was open to theAppellants to adduce evidence to show that the Appellants and/or oneDof the them was not present at the time of the alleged offence.

12. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section482 of CrPC may be exercised to give effect to an order under theCode; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwisesecure the ends of justice.

E

E13. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has tobe exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when suchexercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the sectionitself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to anyorder under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Courtor to otherwise secure the ends of justice.F

14. For interference under Section 482, three conditions are to befulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a grave, and notof a trivial character; it should be palpable and clear and not doubtfuland there should exist no other provision of law by which the partyaggrieved could have sought relief.G

15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissiblefor the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to beprima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluatematerials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence H

to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not forconvicting the accused.

16. The High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction underSection 482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliableor not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence theallegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the trial Judge.This proposition finds support from the judgment of this Court in ZanduPharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharful Haque andAnother[1].

17. The High Court may have an obligation to intervene underSection 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error has beencommitted by the Magistrate in issuing process despite the fact that thealleged acts did not at all constitute offences. Reference may be madeto S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Another[2]. However,it is important to remember that while exercising powers under thisSection, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision.

18. The power under Section 482 of CrPC should not be exercisedto stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, if the basic ingredientsof the offence alleged are altogether absent, the criminal proceedingsmay be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.

19. It is well settled that where the allegations set out in thecomplaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, it is open tothe High Court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 ofthe Code, to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizanceof the offence. Reference may be made to M.A.A. Annamali v. Stateof Karnataka and Another[3], Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar[4]and Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors.[5].The inherent power under Section 482 is intended to prevent the abuseof the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Suchpower cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barredunder the Code. Reference may be made to Dharampal and Ors. v.Smt. Ramshri and Ors[6].

1 (2005) 1 SCC 122

2 (2002) 1 SCC 241

3 2010 (8) SCC 524

4 AIR 1977 SC 1754

5 AIR 1976 SC 1947

6 AIR 1993 SC 1361

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A20. In rejecting the application, the High Court relied upon thejudgment of this Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal[7]wherethis Court laid down the following guidelines for exercise of power underSection 482:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report orBthe complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offenceor make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and othermaterials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizableCoffence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate withinthe purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR orcomplaint and the evidence collected in support of the same doDnot disclose the commission of any offence and make out a caseagainst the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizableoffence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of aEMagistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are soabsurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudentperson can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficientground for proceeding against the accused.

F

F(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of theprovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which acriminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuanceof the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision inthe Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress forthe grievance of the aggrieved party.G

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with anulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and witha view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

H7 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR. v. STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.]

21. In Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others[8], citedby the High Court, this Court held that:-

“Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowersthe High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuseof the process of court. In proceedings instituted on complaintexercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings iscalled for only in cases where the complaint does not discloseany offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If theallegations set out in the complaint do not constitute theoffence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it isopen to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of theinherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however,necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of thecase, before the trial to find out whether the case would endin conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole.If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in thelight of the statement on oath of the complainant thatingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and thereis no material to show that the complaint is mala fide frivolousor vexatious, in that event there would be no justification forinterference by the High Court.”

22. The High Court also relied on State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and Others[9], (1977) 2 SCC 699, where this Courtconsidered the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482Cr.PC and held:- “In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court isentitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusionthat allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuseof the process of the Court or that the ends of justice requirethat the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of theHigh Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminalmatters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose whichis that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted todegenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In acriminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution,the very nature of the material on which the structure of the 8 1990 Supp SCC 686

9 (1977) 2 SCC 699

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aprosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court inquashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The endsof justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justicehas got to be administered according to laws made by thelegislature. The compelling necessity for making theseobservations is that without a proper realisation of the objectBand purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherentpowers of the High Court to do justice, between the State andits subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the widthand contours of that salient jurisdiction.”

23. In this case, the High Court rightly refused to quash the criminalCcomplaint, observing that it can exercise power under Section 482 of theCrPC only in rare cases. The power to quash the proceedings is generallyexercised when there is no material to proceed against the Petitionerseven if the allegations in the complaint are prima facie accepted astrue. The High Court in effect found, and rightly, that the allegations inDthe complaint coupled with the statements recorded by the learnedMagistrate had the necessary ingredients of offences under Sections307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

24. We agree with the High Court that this is not a fit case toquash the criminal proceedings for the reasons discussed above.E25. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

F

G

H