2016 (8) TMI 1604 - SC - Indian Laws

Territorial jurisdiction - place of incident is Haryana - FIR and the cognizance of the offence taken at Durg - Scope of inquiry under Section 174 of the Code - Scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code - HELD THAT - The allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced on record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the deceased after a period of five years that too on the basis of anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the appellants before filing of the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants. Also, the court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction because cause of action, if any, has arisen in Ambala. The criminal proceeding is grossly delayed and a result of belated afterthought. The High Court failed to apply the test whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. The High Court did not apply its mind judiciously and on an incorrect appreciation of record, ordered for continuance of the investigation on a petition under Section 482 of the Code. This power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. FIR is hereby quashed and the criminal proceeding against the appellants is dropped for want of prosecution - the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the second FIR
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court at Durg
3. Delay in lodging the FIR
4. Scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Second FIR:
The appellants contended that the first information regarding the incident satisfied the requirement of Section 154 of the Code, and thus, a second FIR or fresh investigation was not permissible. The initial investigation conducted by P.S. Mulana concluded with no signs of foul play, and the case was closed. The Supreme Court clarified that the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code have a limited scope, aimed only at determining whether a death was suspicious or unnatural. The inquiry under Section 174 does not equate to an investigation under Section 154. Therefore, the information received under Section 174 did not satisfy the requirements of Section 154, and the FIR registered in 2005 was not a second FIR for the same incident.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court at Durg:
The appellants argued that the court at Durg had no territorial jurisdiction as the incident occurred in Ambala. The Supreme Court noted that territorial jurisdiction is typically based on the place of occurrence. The court emphasized that while the FIR can be forwarded to the appropriate jurisdiction, the initial investigation can be conducted by any police station. However, in this case, the entire cause of action arose in Ambala, and no part of the alleged offense occurred in Durg. Thus, the court at Durg lacked territorial jurisdiction.

3. Delay in Lodging the FIR:
The FIR was lodged five years after the incident based on anonymous letters. The Supreme Court highlighted that such a delay often results in embellishment and raises doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations. The relations between the appellant and his in-laws were cordial post the incident, and no suspicion was raised at the time of death. The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed extraordinary and indicative of an afterthought, leading to the conclusion that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law.

4. Scope of Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code:
The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 for quashing the FIR, arguing it was filed with an ulterior motive and was barred by territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for exercising inherent power under Section 482, emphasizing that it should be used sparingly and only in rare cases to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Court found that the High Court failed to apply these principles judiciously and ordered the continuance of the investigation without proper consideration of the legal bar and the malicious intent behind the FIR.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 194 dated 29.05.2005 and dropped the criminal proceedings against the appellants due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction, the extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR, and the malicious intent behind the prosecution. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of judicious use of inherent powers under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the legal process.