2010 (10) TMI 1247 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was correct in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal complaint.
2. Whether a prima facie case under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellants.
3. Whether appellant No. 2 can be held vicariously liable for the alleged offences.
4. Whether the arbitral award being set aside affects the criminal complaint.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide but not unlimited. These powers should be exercised sparingly and with caution to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process. The Court emphasized that these powers should not be used mechanically or routinely but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out. The Court cited precedents such as *R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab* and *Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill* to underscore this principle.

2. Prima Facie Case under Sections 192 and 199 read with Section 34 IPC:
The Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the complaint's allegations. Section 192 IPC pertains to fabricating false evidence, while Section 199 IPC deals with making false statements in declarations receivable as evidence. The Court noted that the complaint alleged that a fabricated document was tendered in evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal had observed that the MSEB had tampered with the commissioning reports. The Court found that a prima facie case of offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC was made out against appellant No. 1, as the document could have influenced the Tribunal's decision.

3. Vicarious Liability of Appellant No. 2:
The Court held that vicarious liability under criminal law requires specific statutory provision, which Sections 192 and 199 IPC do not incorporate. The complaint did not contain specific allegations against appellant No. 2, who was the Chairman of MSEB, regarding his personal involvement in the alleged fabrication and submission of false evidence. The Court cited *S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla* and *S.K. Alagh v. State of Uttar Pradesh* to emphasize that a person cannot be held vicariously liable without specific statutory provision and clear averments of their role in the offence. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie case against appellant No. 2.

4. Effect of the Arbitral Award Being Set Aside:
The Court dismissed the argument that the setting aside of the arbitral award affects the criminal complaint. It held that the offences under Sections 192 and 199 IPC exist independently of the final arbitral award. Therefore, the criminal complaint remains valid irrespective of the arbitral award's status.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal concerning appellant No. 1, holding that a prima facie case under Sections 192 and 199 IPC was made out. However, the Court allowed the appeal for appellant No. 2, quashing the complaint against him due to the lack of specific allegations and the absence of vicarious liability under the relevant IPC sections. The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against appellant No. 2 was quashed.