9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (12) TMI 597 - SC - Indian LawsScope of exercise of power u/s 482 of the CrPC - commission of offences under Sections 120(8) 420 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code 1872 ( IPC ) r/w Section 13(2) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( Act ) - HELD THAT - It is to be noted mplete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. 1992 (4) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions u/s 482 of the CrPC. which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. Learned Single Judges did not keep in view the correct position in law while allowing the petitions filed by the respondents. It baffles us as to how a learned Single Judge while exercising powers u/s 482 CrPC could even direct grant of renewal of licence. It is somewhat akin to a learned Single Judge of another High Court directing creation of criminal courts to deal with cases under a particular statute. It is baffling how learned Single Judge referred to submissions purportedly made by learned Counsel for Bichitrananda who was not even a party. It is not clear how such submissions if any could be made. The conclusions are based on surmises and conjectures without any material to support them. Learned Single Judge arrived at certain conclusions which are utterly fallacious. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that interim protections were given by the High Court as regards the respondents being on bail. That protection shall continue but in case the respondents fail to cooperate in the investigation and do not appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation as and when required the interim protection shall cease to be operative and it shall be open to the investigating agency to move the concerned court for cancellation of the protection which was granted. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that in case charge sheet is filed and in the case where charge sheet is already filed respondents shall seek discharge. If any such motion is made the concerned Court shall deal with the same in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion about the acceptability or otherwise of such motion if made. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of orders quashing proceedings based on FIRs. 2. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Allegations of mala fide intent and political vendetta. 4. Parameters for quashing FIRs and proceedings. 5. Role and limitations of High Court in quashing proceedings. 6. Interim protections and cooperation in investigation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Orders Quashing Proceedings Based on FIRs: The appeals challenge the legality of orders passed by learned Single Judges of the Orissa High Court, which quashed the proceedings initiated against respondents based on FIRs. The High Court exercised power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 61 dated 30.12.2000 and FIR No. 43 dated 16.9.2000. The FIRs involved allegations against Saroj Kumar Sahoo and Nalinikanta Muduli related to the establishment of a polytechnic and misuse of industrial land and sheds. 2. Exercise of Power Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: The High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was scrutinized. The section envisages three circumstances for its exercise: (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that this power should be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution. It should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution or to interfere with ongoing investigations prematurely. 3. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent and Political Vendetta: The respondents argued that the prosecuting agency acted with mala fide intent to harass Bichitrananda and unleash political vendetta. The High Court's analysis of the factual position and the principles relating to the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was defended by the respondents. However, the Supreme Court noted that allegations of mala fides against the informant are secondary and do not justify quashing proceedings if the material collected during the investigation supports the allegations. 4. Parameters for Quashing FIRs and Proceedings: The judgment reiterated the parameters for quashing FIRs and proceedings as established in previous cases like R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. These include situations where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings, where the allegations do not constitute an offence, or where there is no legal evidence to support the charges. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not act as a trial court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Role and Limitations of High Court in Quashing Proceedings: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's approach in quashing the FIRs and proceedings, noting that the High Court should not have interfered at the investigation stage. The High Court's conclusions were based on surmises and conjectures without material support. The Court highlighted the inappropriateness of the High Court directing the renewal of licenses and making conclusions based on submissions purportedly made by a non-party. 6. Interim Protections and Cooperation in Investigation: The Supreme Court directed that the investigation be completed within six months and that the respondents cooperate with the investigating officer. Interim protections granted by the High Court regarding bail would continue, but failure to cooperate would lead to the cessation of such protections. The respondents were allowed to seek discharge if a charge sheet is filed, and the concerned court would deal with such motions according to the law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders and directed the completion of the investigation within six months. The appeals were allowed to the extent of directing the continuation of the investigation and ensuring cooperation from the respondents. The judgment emphasized the careful and cautious exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the limitations of the High Court in quashing proceedings prematurely.
|
