K.L.E. Society and Ors. v. Siddalingesh

~ 't A ; B . "',.,,_ " ~'~ . " # [2008] 3 S.C.R. 783 ' ## K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. II. SIDDALi NG ESH (Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2008) MARCH 3, 2008 # [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] _Code of criminal Procedure, 1973:_ · s. _482_ - _Complaint for offences under /PC_ - _Initiation of_ - c _criminal proceedings Application for quashing the_ - _proceedings and complaint -Dismissed by High Court On appeal held: Complaint_ was _an abuse of process of law_ - _In the facts of the_ case, _accusations in the complaint are not_ - - - _made out Proceedings quashed Penal Code, 1860_ ss. _403, 405 and 415 rlw_ s. _34 ._ D • _[""( ]_ s. _482_ - _Inherent powers under_ - _Nature and scope of_ - _Held: Exercise of such power in_ cases _of quashing of proceedings_ is _the exception and not the rule- It_ is, _though wide,_ has _to be exercised sparingly in order to do substantial_ - E _justice It should not be exercised to stifle_ a _legitimate prosecution- While exercising svch powers courts not to function_ as _court of appeal or revision._ Respondent was appointed as a peon with the appellant-society. He filed a petition in terms of s. 33 (C) F (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that lesser amounts were paid to him and his signatures were taken for higher amounts. After his retirement he filed a complaint against the society and its Principal and Secretary alleging· commission of offence punishable u/ss. 403, 405 G and 415 r/w s. 34 IPC. He stated in the complaint that he was given to understand by the appellants that certain amounts were being deducted for repayment at the time of retirement. Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and H 783 > 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. _f_ • A issued pr.ocess. Appellants filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings and the complaint. High Court dismissed the application. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court ## B HELD: 1. The complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. High Court came to the conclusion that deductions were made without any rhyme and reason and without any basis. That was not the case of the c[complainant. ][On ][the other hand, ][it ][tried to ][make ][out a case ] that the deduction was made with an object. That obviously, was the foundation to substantiate claim of entrustment. On a close reading of the ·complaint it is clear that the ingredients of Sections 403, 405 and 415 do not D[exist. ][The ][statement made in the complaint runs contrary ] to the averments made in the petition in terms of Section 33-(C) (2). [Paras 7 and 12) [795-C, D; 790-A, BJ 2.1 Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in a case of the nature where quashing of criminal proceeding E[is sought, is the exception ][and ][not the rule. ][The ][Section ] does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the intierent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction F[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 of justice. [Para 8] [790-C, D] ( .,;-" ,; ) ',. ., , .. 2.2 It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down G any inflexible 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 from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper H[discharge ][of ][functions and duties imposed upon them ] 785' K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH "[t ] j. ...-- _r_ " ·"';... ' • ;l:; ~-+ by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the A section which merely recognizes 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 right and to undo a wrong in B course of administration of justice on the principle _"quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae_ esse _non potest"_ (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). [Para 8) [790·0, E, F, G] c 2.3 While exercising powers under the Section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests D specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised _ex debito justitiae_ to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as E 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 an_d prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds · F that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abase of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the cou"rt may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be G 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. [Para 8) [790-G; 791 ·A, B, C, DJ 2.4 When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 H 786 SUP~EME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. _t_ A Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, accusation WO!Jld not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an B[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 hands of a private c[complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person ] needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. [Para 10] [792-A, B, C] D _State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal_ 1992 Supp (1) 335 ... relied on. 2.5 Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The E[inherent power should ][not ][be ][exercised to ][stifle ][a ] legitimate 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 F issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the G proceeding at any stage. [Para 11) [793-G; 794-A, BJ _Janata Dal v. H._ S. _Chowdhary_ 1992 (4) SCC 305; _Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar_ AIR 1964 SC 1 - relied on. 2.6 It would not be proper for the High Court to H ~ ,.. _-.I_ , ) ~ •"""" -;-- .K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH 787 _r_ analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all A probabilities in order·to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. B In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the C offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . Cr.P.C .. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. D The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on 0<1th of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala E fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When · an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the ma/a _fides_ of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material F collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of ma/a _fides_ against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. [Para 11] [794-B, C, D, E, F, G; G 795-A] _Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar_ 1990 Supp SCC 686; _State of Bihar v. P P Sharma_ AIR 1996 SC 309; _Rupan_ : _Debi Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill_ 1995 (6) SCC 194; _State_ . _of Kera/av._ 0. C. _Kuttan_ AIR 1999 SC 1044; _State of UP v._ 0. H ·788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. _i_ ~ ..._ . A _P Sharma_ **1996 (7) SCC 705;** _Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada_ **1997** (2) **SCC 397;** _Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi_ **AIR 1996 SC 2983;** _Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi_ **1999** (3) **SCC** _259;·State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr._ **2002** (3) **SCC 89;** _Zandu_ B _[Pharmaceutical Works ][Ltd. ][v. ][Mohd. ][Sharaful Haque and ][Anr. ]_ **2005 (1) SCC 122;** _R. P Kapur v. State of Punjab_ **AIR 1960 SC 866 - relied on.** "' _[> ]_ ' CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 427 of 2008. c From the final Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 2795 of 2006. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, V.N. Raghupathy, B. Subrahmanya D Prasad and Narayan P. Kengasur for the Appellants. Kiran Suri for the Respondent. '! ' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.** 1. Leave granted. E 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the application filed before it in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). Prayer in the F[application before the High Court ][was ][for quashing the ] proceedings in C.C.No.273/2006 including the complaint on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gulbarga. _i:_ ~ 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under: Respondent was appointed as a Peon in K.L.E. Society's G Women Arts and Commerce College in the year 1992 of which the appellant no.3 was the Principal at the relevant point of time. Appellant no.2 was the Secretary at the relevant point of time and the Society was represented by its Chairman, Board of H[Management. ][He ][resigned ][from ][service ][on ][17.12.2003. ][The ] K.L.E. ·SOCEITY AND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH 789 " \ _J._ ~ **==> picture [125 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** complaint was filed on 13.1.2006 alleging commission of A offence punishable under Section 403, 405 and 415 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. The same was questioned by the appellants. The stand before the High Court was that the complaint was misconceived, B no offence was made out even on indepth scrutiny of the complaint. In fact, the respondent had filed petition in terms of Section 33 (C} (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short 'ID' Act) and also filed writ petition claiming parity in salary which was disposed of by giving the direction to consider the· c respondents' case. In the petition in terms of Section 33-(C)(2) of the ID Act the respondent had stated that lesser amounts were paid and signatures for higher amounts were taken. The said petition is pending. In the writ petition before the High Court · there was no mention about any deduction. It is stated in the D complaint that the complainant was given to understand that _r_ certain amounts were being deducted for repayment at the time of retirement or cessation of his job. In the notice issued on 23.11.2004, there is no mention about this aspect. It was, therefore, submitted that the complaint was nothing but an abuse of process of law. E '', '-·· ' 4. The complainant-respondent resisted the stand by stating that the offences are clearly spelt out. 5. The High Court dismissed the petition holding as follows: F "The respondent lodged a private complaint against the petitioner on 13.1.2006 along with six supporting documents. After perusing the complaint, the documents and the sworn statement of the respondent, process is issued against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. G This petition is filed for quashing the proceedings." 6. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand • -+ taken before the High Court. On the other hand, respondent also reiterat~d the stand taken before the High Court. H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. _t_ A 7. One thing is clear on reading of High Court's reasoning that the ~igh Court came to the conclusion that deductions were made without any rhyme and reason and without any basis. That was not the case of the complainant. On the other hand, it tried to make out a case that the deduction was made with an object. B That obviously, was the foundation to substantiate claim of entrustment. On a close reading of the complaint it is clear that the ingredients of Sections 403, 405 and 415 do not exist. The statement made in the complaint runs contrary to the pVerments made in the petition in terms of Section 33-(C) (2). A _/_ " ' c 8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under D which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of 1 ' the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent E jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions apd duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds _ ~ ~ F expression in the section which merely recognizes 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 right and to undo a wrong in course of administration G of justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the sectiQn, -;--- ~ the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be H 791 K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH ., 't • 'I " ·• > _">. ·r_ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.) exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when A such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do ·real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice. and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as B 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 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 c abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the D complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 9. 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 E proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; ·~ (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or F complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constit.ute 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. G 10. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in ' -+ mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal H 79.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A ev'dence which, on appreciation, may or may not su;p6'rt the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would s not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not 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 c it would be an instrument .in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court D may exercise its power under it relating to 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_ (1992 Supp (1) 335). A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be E exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. F _t_ : .. > ,.. " "' 1 ... (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not G disclose 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. H (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 793 K.L.E. SOCEITYAND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH y " ... r~ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the A 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 B 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 c which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. :r / ... • ---+ (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under D which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. E (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." F 11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this G power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate 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 H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 794 [2008) 3 S.C.R. _f_ A not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in whiCh the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction B[of quashing ][the ][proceeding ][at ][any ][stage. ][(See: ] _[Janata ][Dal ][v. ] H._ S. _Chowdhary_ (1992 (4) SCC 305), and _Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar_ (AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction c[would ][be ][sustainable ][and ][on ][such premises arrive at a ] conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash D[the ][proceedings ][is ][called ][for ][only ][in ][a ][case ][where ][the ][complaint ] does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. E It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the.case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the F complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is G registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves ,. ,. , ,~ 1 .,a. _1-_ "( H 795 K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. _v._ SIDDALINGESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See: A _Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar_ (1990 Supp SCC 686), _State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma_ (Al R 1996 SC 309), _Ru pan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill_ (1995 (6) SCC 194), _State of Kera/a v._ 0. C. _Kuttan_ (Al R 1999 SC 1044), _State of U. P. v._ 0. _P. Sharma_ (1996 (7) SCC 705), _Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh_ B _Kumar Bhada_ (1997 (2) SCC 397), _Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. ofNCTofDelhi)_ (AIR 1996 SC 2983) and _Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi_ (1999 (3) SCC 259, _State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Another_ (2002 (3) SCC 89) and _Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Anr._ C (2005 (1) sec 122). · 12. When the factual scenario is examined in the background of the legal principles set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the proceedings in C.C.No.273/2006 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gulbarga. 13. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits so far as the petition under Section 33• (C)(2) of the ID Act is concerned, which is stated to be pending. K.K.T. Appeal allowed.