9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1662 - SC - Indian LawsScope and ambit of Inherent Jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - partition of suit property. It is submitted that High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure shall not examine the question as to whether the allegations made against the Appellant in the complaint are true or false nor High Court will assess the evidence at this stage. HELD THAT - This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS L. MUNISWAMY 1977 (3) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT , held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. A three-Judge Bench in STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M. DEVENDRAPPA AND ORS 2002 (1) TMI 1340 - SUPREME COURT , had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure By analysing the scope of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court laid down that authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that Court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. In the Criminal Revision filed against the said order of the Session Judge, this Court did not interfere with the rejection of an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, however, observed that the complainant has remedy to file appropriate application. The complainant thereafter had filed Complaint No. 1 of 2017. It is true that rejection of an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure in no manner preclude a complainant to file a complaint Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure - it is clear that dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the Appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated 19.07.2016. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot and has drawn proceeding Under Section 151, 107, 116 Code of Criminal Procedure against both the parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. From the sequence of the events, it is clear that dispute regarding property between complainant and father of the Appellant is pending much before the alleged incident dated 19.07.2016. The fact that on the same date of the incident Police visited the spot and has drawn proceeding Under Section 151, 107, 116 Code of Criminal Procedure against both the parties and both the parties were required to maintain peace is a clear pointer to the nature of quarrel between the parties. It was more than six weeks thereafter that for the first time an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the complainant against the Accused in the court of Session Judge. Present is a case where criminal proceedings have been initiated by complainant with an ulterior motive due to private and personal grudge. The High Court although noticed the judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. in the impugned judgment but did not examine the facts of the case as to whether present is a case which falls in any of the category as enumerated in Bhajan Lal's case. The present case clearly falls in category VII of Bhajan Lal's case and the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complaint. Thus, in permitting Criminal proceedings against the Appellant shall be permitting a criminal proceeding which has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, permitting such criminal proceeding to go on is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court which needs to be interfered by this Court - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 2. Allegations of abuse of process of law and malicious prosecution. 3. Examination of the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC. 4. Analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the property dispute and related incidents. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC: The appellants challenged the High Court's order rejecting their application to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, which allows the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. 2. Allegations of Abuse of Process of Law and Malicious Prosecution: The appellants argued that the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions to pressurize them in an ongoing property dispute. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant's application under Section 156(3) CrPC had been previously rejected by the Sessions Judge, and an enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police found no evidence to support the allegations. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. 3. Examination of the Scope and Jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC: The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to outline the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Court reiterated that the High Court could quash proceedings if they were manifestly attended with mala fide, maliciously instituted, or if allowing them to continue would result in injustice. The Court emphasized that judicial process should not be used as an instrument of oppression or harassment. 4. Analysis of the Facts and Circumstances Surrounding the Property Dispute and Related Incidents: The Court noted that the parties involved were related and had an ongoing civil dispute regarding property. The incident in question occurred on 19.07.2016, leading to proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 116 CrPC to maintain peace. The complainant's subsequent application under Section 156(3) CrPC was rejected, and an enquiry report found no evidence of the alleged incidents. The Court found that the complaint was filed much later, indicating it was an afterthought to exert pressure in the property dispute. The Supreme Court also observed that the Sessions Judge, while summoning the accused, did not believe the second part of the incident alleged in the complaint, which cast doubt on the entire complaint. The High Court failed to consider these facts and the pending civil suit between the parties. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were initiated with ulterior motives and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. The High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings initiated by Complaint Case No. 1 of 2017 were quashed.
|
