2009 (4) TMI 1040 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against the order quashing FIR u/s 482 CrPC.

Issue 1: Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC

The appeal challenged the order quashing the FIR in Crime No. 433/2002-2003 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Mahabubabad, Warangal District registered under Section 7 (A) read with Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court allowed the prayer to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the High Court's decision to quash the FIR was erroneous as there was material to show the commission of a crime. The power under Section 482 of the Code should be sparingly used and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 is an exception and not the rule, and the High Court should not quash proceedings unless it is a clear case of abuse of process of court or to secure the ends of justice.

Issue 2: Exercise of Power under Section 482 of the Code

The Supreme Court highlighted that the power under Section 482 of the Code is inherent and should be exercised judiciously. The Court clarified that the High Court should not analyze the case in detail to determine conviction at the quashing stage. The Court must ensure that the complaint discloses an offence and is not frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The material collected during investigation and evidence led in Court decides the fate of the accused, and mala fides of the informant are of secondary importance.

The Court referred to previous judgments to outline categories where the inherent power can be exercised to quash proceedings, emphasizing that the power should be used sparingly and only in rare cases. The Court reiterated that the acceptability of materials to establish culpability is a matter for trial, and interference with the FIR at the threshold should be in exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating that the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR as the materials to establish guilt would be determined during trial. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 should be exercised cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.