2008 (1) TMI 875 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not? Whether the evidence in question is reliable or not?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to review its own order.
3. Whether the High Court improperly exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

The Supreme Court noted that the appellant lodged a complaint against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court, satisfied with the prima facie case, framed charges against the respondents. The High Court, in an earlier order dated October 22, 1997, upheld the charges against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, which was further affirmed by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the respondents on December 23, 1998.

Despite this, the High Court quashed the proceedings on the grounds of abuse of process of law by the appellant, which the Supreme Court found erroneous. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's decision to quash the proceedings contradicted the earlier affirmation by both the High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the prima facie case against the respondents.

2. Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to review its own order:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court, in quashing the proceedings, essentially exercised a power of review not conferred by the Code on a Criminal Court. Section 362 of the Code explicitly states that no court, once it has signed its judgment or order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji and Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., to emphasize that the power of review is not an inherent power and must be conferred by a specific provision.

3. Whether the High Court improperly exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code:

The Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised in rarest of rare cases. It cited the leading case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where principles for exercising power of quashing criminal proceedings were laid down. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's action did not fall within the categories warranting the exercise of inherent powers. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings was deemed improper, as it contradicted the earlier judicial findings and did not meet the stringent criteria for quashing set out in prior case law.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was wrong in quashing the criminal proceedings and that it had no jurisdiction to review its own order under Section 482 of the Code. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed that the matter be decided in accordance with law by an appropriate Court. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the matter or the allegations and counter-allegations by the parties, and all observations were made solely for deciding the issue before it.