2003 (3) TMI 721 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ambit of inherent powers of the High Courts u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.
2. Applicability of Section 320 of the CrPC in quashing non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes.
3. Interpretation and application of previous judgments related to the inherent powers of the High Court.

Summary:

1. Ambit of inherent powers of the High Courts u/s 482 CrPC:
The Supreme Court examined the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts u/s 482 CrPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings, specifically in the context of matrimonial disputes. The Court noted that the inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC are meant to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that these powers are not limited and must be exercised with utmost care and caution.

2. Applicability of Section 320 CrPC in quashing non-compoundable offences:
The Court addressed whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIRs in cases where the offences are non-compoundable u/s 320 CrPC, particularly in matrimonial disputes. The Court held that Section 320 CrPC does not bar the exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice. The Court highlighted that in matrimonial disputes, where the parties have resolved their differences and seek to quash the FIR, it would be counterproductive to deny such relief on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable.

3. Interpretation and application of previous judgments:
The Supreme Court analyzed previous judgments, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, and Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, to clarify the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC. The Court observed that the categories of cases listed in Bhajan Lal's case were illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court also clarified that Madhu Limaye's case did not limit the power of quashing criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC. The Court reiterated that the inherent power of the High Court can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, even in cases involving non-compoundable offences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings or FIRs in matrimonial disputes to secure the ends of justice, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offences u/s 320 CrPC. The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal, quashing the FIR in question.