REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1499 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.929 of 2011)
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu .... Appellant (s)
Versus
Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 28.10.2010 of the High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 5928 of
2010 wherein the High Court allowed the criminal petition
filed by Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein and quashed the criminal
proceedings pending against them.
1
3) Brief facts:
(a) The appellant, who was a defacto complainant and
Respondent Nos. 1-3 (accused persons) are the residents of
Komaripalem village of East Godavari District. Though all of
them belong to Congress Party, Respondent No. 1, Kovvuri
Satyanarayana Reddy (A-1) and Respondent No. 2, Karri
Venkata Mukunda Reddy (A-2) developed ill will against the
appellant and were jealous of his gaining popularity within the
party as well as in their area and neighbourhood. Respondent
No. 3, Mallidi Chinna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (A-3), was
initially an associate of the appellant herein but later joined
hands with A-1 and A-2.
(b) In the year 2006, the appellant contested Zila Parishad
Territorial Constituency Elections as an independent
candidate and won it. A-1 and A-2 developed grudge against
the appellant and they contracted Valmiki Gujjula Ramayya
Kondayya (A-4) who belongs to Emmiganur Mandal of Kurnool
District for killing the appellant and gave him Rs. 7,00,000/-
to purchase a vehicle and also gave separate amount for hiring
goondas. A-4 hired A-5 to A-12 for the said purpose and they
2
conspired together and hatched a plan to assault the
appellant. Further, A-3 was entrusted with the responsibility
of giving information about the movements of the appellant.
(c) In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 07.11.2007 between
7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding in
his Honda City car along with his wife and children to attend a
function near J.K. Gardens, A-4, A-7 to A-12 who were in a
Scorpio Car came across his car. In the meanwhile, A-5 and
A-6 also came there on Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle belonging to A-
2 where A-4 and A-12 broke the windowpanes of the car while
A-5 sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of the appellant and
attacked him with rods and sticks and caused injuries on his
vital parts of the body which resulted in bleeding. Thereafter,
A-4 to A-12 left the spot. Somehow the appellant managed to
escape from the place of incident and went to the house of
Jakkampudi Raja Indra Vandir (L.W.-6), who admitted him in
the hospital and informed the incident to the SHO, I Town
(L&O), Police Station, Rajahmundry.
3
(d) After completion of investigation, the S.I. filed charge
sheet against A-1 to A-12 on 30.08.2008 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the
IPC") before the Court of IInd Additional Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Rajahmundry and the same was taken on file in
PRC No. 14 of 2008. The Magistrate committed the case to the
Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry for trial
and the same was taken on file in Sessions Case No. 175 of
2010.
(e) When the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos. 1-3
herein preferred Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010 before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code") to quash the
criminal proceedings against them. The learned single Judge
of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 28.10.2010,
allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings
against Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein (A-1 to A-3). Aggrieved by
the said order, the appellant-complainant has filed this appeal
by way of special leave petition before this Court.
4
4) Heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for
Respondent Nos. 1-3 and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned
counsel for Respondent No.4-State.
5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether
the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by
invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?
Discussion about Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6) Section 482 of the Code deals with inherent power of
High Court. It is under Chapter XXXVII of the Code titled
"Miscellaneous" which reads as under:
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court-
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers 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."
This section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable to
render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality
was palpable and apparent. This section envisages three
5
circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely:
1. to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C.,
2. to prevent abuse of the process of any court,
3. to secure the ends of justice.
7) In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC
866=(1960) 3 SCR 388, this Court laid down the following
principles:-
"(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal
proceedings against an accused may amount to the
abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of
the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of
justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the said
proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report
or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but
there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."
8) In State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy & Ors. AIR
1977 SC 1489, this Court has held as under:-
"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High 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 of justice require that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers,
6
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 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 of justice
are higher than the ends of mere law though justice 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 its subjects it would be impossible
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction."
Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is
very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised
in exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the
High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also
courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove
injustice. The inherent power of the High Court is an
inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the
courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly
administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial
when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and
for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section
7
482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to
exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with
clean hands.
9) In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will
not enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the
matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of
two courts below. Inherent powers under Section 482 include
powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings
pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it
and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can
be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the
process of any court and to make such orders as may be
necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,
depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always
take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same
by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These
powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other
provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to
be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.
8
10) It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section
482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available
to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is
provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent
with specific provisions provided under the Code.- (vide
Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana & Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 675). If an effective alternative
remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers
under this section, specially when the applicant may not have
availed of that remedy.
11) The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae,
to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which
alone Courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power
to prevent the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this
stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before
the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or
acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar
& Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S.
Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41; and M/s Zandu
9
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. Md. Sharaful
Haque & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).
12) It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down
exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But
some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the
decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary
and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and
Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6)
SCC 194), and Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and
Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).
13) In the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) this Court considered in detail
the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court
to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarized
the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be
followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to
quash a criminal complaint:
1
"(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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
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.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or 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
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 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 continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is 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 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."
14) In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and
Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 a petition under Section 482 was
filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a
1
common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the
complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court.
While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following
principles:
"1. The High courts should not exercise their inherent
powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to
quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and
with abundant caution.
2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If
the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings
should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the
basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out
the alleged offence.
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a)
purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c)
a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a criminal offence."
15) In State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
(2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the
prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise
the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary
importance. The relevant passage reads thus:
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 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."
16) In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,
this Court held as under:-
"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution
at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be
applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is
also for the court to take into consideration any special
features which appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to
permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis
that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose
and where in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the
proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
17) This Court, while reconsidering the Judgment in
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), consistently
observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e.
matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider
"special facts", "special features" and quash the criminal
1
proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes
between the parties.
18) The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained by
this Court in State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma &
Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 which reads as under:
"Madhaorao J. Scindhia v. Sambhaji Rao AIR 1988 SC
709, also does not help the respondents. In that case the
allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created
tenancy of Trust property to favour the third party. A
private complaint was laid for the offence under Section
467 read with Section 34 and Section 120B I.P.C. which
the High Court refused to quash under Section 482. This
Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings
on the ground that even on its own contentions in the
complaint, it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil
wrong but no ingredients of criminal offences were made
out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the
settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son
and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed
the appeal. Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance
to the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this
Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case
the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether
there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the
basis of allegation and exercise of the power under
Section 482 or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or
the charge-sheet."
Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia
(supra) does not lay down a law of universal application. Even
as per the law laid down therein, the Court can not examine
the facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether
1
there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao
Scindia (supra) is applicable in cases where the Court finds
that the dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in
nature and that the parties should be given a chance to reach
a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes
etc. etc. The superior Courts have been given inherent powers
to prevent the abuse of the process of court where the court
finds that the ends of justice may be met by quashing the
proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as the end of
achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the
law. It is not necessary for the court to hold a fullfledged
inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the
Investigating Agency to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal.
Discussion in the case on hand
19) In the light of the above principles, let us consider
whether there are sufficient materials available in the
prosecution case, particularly, in the FIR, chargesheet and
statement of witnesses insofar as respondents herein are
1
concerned. No doubt, in the FIR, the complainant has not
named these respondents as accused. In Column No. 5 of the
FIR under heading "Alleged cause", it is stated that "Alleged to
have been sustained injuries on the head, face due to assault
by unknown persons near J.K. Kalyana Mandapam,
Rajahmundry today (07.11.2007) around 7:00 p.m." Though
the complainant has not specified any name, he had asserted
that while taking a turn from J.N. Road to J.K. Gardens, some
unknown persons kept their maroon color Scorpio car came
across his way at around 7:30 p.m. and about 10 persons got
down from it, while 5 others from auto armed with iron rods
and sticks and they hit the glass on his side to stop him while
he was driving the car. It was also asserted that when he put
down the door glasses, those persons sprinkled chilly powder
on them. After narrating further details, at the end, the
complainant has concluded that those persons conspired
together and attacked with an intention to kill him in a
planned manner. It was further stated that they all appeared
to be goondas and if his wife, children and he himself will see
them again, it would be possible to identify them. If we read
1
all the averments in the FIR, it cannot be claimed that the
complainant has not highlighted the incident said to have
been taken place on 07.11.2007 at around 7:00 p.m.
20) The learned single Judge of the High Court, after
analyzing the FIR, chargesheet and the statement of witnesses
has concluded that the materials placed by the prosecution
are inadequate and ingredients of offence alleged by the
prosecution have not been made out and quashed the
proceedings against respondents. We have already pointed
out the necessary assertion in the complaint and it is true that
the respondents were not named in the complaint.
21) Now, let us consider whether the chargesheet and the
statement of witnesses make out a prima facie case in the light
of principles which we have adverted to in the earlier
paragraphs. After furnishing all the details about the motive
and circumstances, the investigating officer from the materials
collected has concluded:
"Under the above circumstances, A1 to A3 thought that LW-
1 has become insurmountable hurdle in securing seat in
ensuring MLA elections. These and other causes of political
rivalry made them to determine to liquidate LW-1 and to
achieve that object A1 and A2 invited A3 into their fold who
is a staunch supporter of LW-1 formerly and used to help in
1
all angles. In order to accomplish their desire of getting rid
of LW-1, five years ago LW-25 introduced A4 to A1 and A2 as
A1 and A2 are suffering a lot in collecting debts regarding to
fertilizers dealers. On that relation A1 and A2 contacted A4
of Emmiganur, Kurnool District to implement the plan wit
him kill LW-1. A4 having secured A5 to A12 and having
received huge amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- for the purchase of
car and for separate amount for hiring the goondas from A1
and A2 agreed to implement the plan. On 15.10.2007, A4
purchased a Maroon colour Scorpio Car AP 02 M 4959 from
LW-26 and 27. The said car and the silver colour Bajaj
Boxer Motorcycle No. AP 5 AG 9418 of A2 has been used in
the commission of offence.
A5 having secured A5 to A12 boarded in Raja
Rajeswari Lodge, Emmiganur, Kurnool District of for which
LW-28 Yeluganti Perayya provided accommodation on night
of 31.10.2007 and from their, they came to Rajahmundry on
01.11.2007. On 05.11.2007, A4 got effected some minor
repairs to the Scorpio Car at the mechanic shed of LW-24
Anga Janaki Ram. LW-24 gave receipt in the name of A4 for
the collection of repairing charges. Later, A1 and A2 kept A4
to A12 in their godown at their Poultry Farm at
Komaripalem. LWs-22 and 23 Manda Subba Reddy and
Challa Sreenu on the instructions of A1 and A2 used to
provide food drinks etc., to A4 to A12. It is at that godown,
the accused conspired and designed the plan to assault on
LW-1. A1, A2 provided Bajaj boxer motorcycle No. AP 5 AG
9418, Iron Rods and Chili Powder to A4 to A12. A3 was
entrusted with the responsibility giving information about
the movement of LW-1 to A1 and A2 though the cell phone."
With regard to the conversation over cell phones, the
following materials are available in the chargesheet:
"LW-40 secured the cell phones call register of A1 to A3 from
LW-36 who is Airtel Manager, on 07.11.2007 there are 22
calls between A3 and A1 the calls made just before, during
and after the offence LW-40 also secfured the information
from the Idea Manager and it show that A4 and A5 using cell
phones for the relevant period. Thus it is establishes that
the conversation and communication among A1 to A5
through cell phones to commit the offence of murder of LW-
1.
1
On 14.12.2007 at 6:15 a.m. LW-40 arrested A3 at
Komaripalem at his house in the presence of mediators LWs
32 and 33. A3 made a confession regarding the commission
of offence along with the other accused. In pursuance of the
confession of A3, the Nokia Cell Phone No. 9949131888 was
seized in the presence of mediators."
22) About the conspiracy, after adverting to various
instances the Investigating Officer has observed thus:-
"The fact of the case establishes that A1 and A2 conspired
with the other accused A3 to A12 to commit the offence of
murder of LW-1. LW-40 added Section of Law 120(b). Thus
A1 to A12 hatched a plan to end the life of LW-1 but
attempted the life of LW-1 and caused grievous injuries."
23) The statement of the appellant (L.W.-1) is also pertinent
to note here. After narrating the entire incident, previous
election dispute, enmity etc. the appellant has stated:
".....Keeping all these facts in view, I suspect that Mr.
Sathibabu and Mr. Mukunda Reddy, or the MRO Mr.
Dummula Baburao (because of the grudge that I got the ACP
Trap laid) might have planned and got the attack made on
me with their men having hatched a Plan to kill me. I know
the cell phones of Mr. Sathibabu, Mr. Mukunda Reddy and
Mr. Babi. Cell number of Babi is 9941931888, Cell No. of
Sathibabu is 9866617777, Cell No. of Mukunda Reddy is
9849355777....."
In the same way, Padala Sunita, (L.W.-2) wife of Venkata
Rama Reddy, after narrating all the details like (L.W.-1) has
stated:
1
".....As my husband has been an obstruction to Kovvuru
Satyanarayan Reddy and Mukunda Reddy they might have
or else, because of the ACB Trap the suspended MRO Mr.
Dummula Baburao might have planned this attack on my
husband in order to kill him or else anybody else for any
reason might have planned this attack on my husband to kill
him. I can identify if I again see some of those persons who
attacked my husband and caused injuries to him....."
24) At this moment, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior
counsel, by pointing out that even if the above mentioned
materials are acceptable, however, the same does not
constitute "legal evidence" to proceed with the trial and
hence the High Court was justified in quashing the same for
which he relied on a decision of this Court in M/s Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra). In that decision, the
factual position highlighted therein goes to show that the
complainant had not come to the court with clean hands.
There was no explanation whatsoever for the inaction
between 1995 to 2001. Considering the factual position
that the complaint was nothing but sheer abuse of process
of law and the High Court has to exercise its power under
Section 482, this Court after finding that the High Court
has failed to exercise such power quashed the proceedings
initiated by the complainant. On going through the factual
2
position, we have no quarrel about the proposition laid
down and ultimate order of this Court. That is not the
position in the case on hand. We have already pointed out
various principles and circumstances under which the High
Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.
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 reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial
Judge The scope of exercise of power under Section 482
and the categories of cases where the High Court 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 detail in Bhajan Lal
(supra). The powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 are very wide and at the same time 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
2
be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It would not
be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to
determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on
such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings
are to be quashed. In a proceeding instituted on a
complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the
proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every
aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint
has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses
made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in
the chargesheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before
arriving any conclusion. It is the material concluded during
the investigation and evidence led in court which decides
the fate of the accused persons.
2
25) On going through the entire complaint, materials
collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement
of witnesses LW-1 and LW-2 and by conjoint reading of all
the above materials, it cannot be presumed that there is no
legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution. In
the light of the principles enunciated in various decisions
which we have noted in the earlier paras, we are satisfied
that the High Court has exceeded its power in quashing the
criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the
ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution has not
been made out. The High Court has also committed an
error in assuming that with the materials available, the
prosecution cannot end in conviction.
26) For the above reasons and in the light of the materials
which we have discussed, we are unable to sustain the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The impugned
order quashing the criminal proceedings against the
Respondent Nos. 1-3, i.e. A1-A3 in S.C. No. 175 of 2010 on
the file of the Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,
Rajahmundry, arising out of P.R.C. No. 14 of 2008 on the
2
file of the IInd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Rajahmundry is set aside. The trial Court is directed to
proceed with the case against the respondents in
accordance with law. The criminal appeal is allowed.
..........................................J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
..........................................J.
(H.L. GOKHALE)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 29, 2011.
2
