2017 (4) TMI 978 - SC - Indian Laws

High court jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. - quashing of criminal proceedings - proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the Categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT . Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are material to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case. Although, the High Court has noted the judgment of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, but did not advert to the relevant facts of the present case, materials on which Final Report was submitted by the IO. We, thus, are fully satisfied that the present is a fit case where High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings. Appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court as well as the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the order of the Sessions Judge including the entire criminal proceedings are quashed.

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment and orders summoning the appellants for offences under Sections 452, 376(d), and 323 IPC.
2. Financial transactions and agreements between the accused and complainant's family.
3. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Allegations of rape and assault by the complainant.
5. Investigation and findings by the Investigating Officer (IO).
6. Refusal of medical examination by the complainant.
7. Statements and affidavits from witnesses.
8. Final Report by the IO and subsequent protest petition.
9. High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. Scope and ambit of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The appellants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the judgment and orders summoning them for offences under Sections 452, 376(d), and 323 IPC. The High Court dismissed the application, leading to the present appeal.

2. Financial Transactions and Agreements:
The accused engaged in several financial transactions with the complainant and her family in May 2015. Accused No.3 gave ?9 lakh, accused No.1 gave ?7.5 lakh in cash, and ?6 lakh by cheque. Multiple agreements were signed acknowledging these transactions, and cheques were provided to ensure repayment.

3. Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
Accused No.3 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to dishonoured cheques issued by the complainant's family. Accused No.1 also filed a similar complaint. These complaints were pending before the alleged incident of rape.

4. Allegations of Rape and Assault:
The complainant alleged that on 22.10.2015, the accused entered her house, assaulted her, and accused Vineet and Nitendra raped her while Sonu stood outside. She claimed the police did not register her FIR, leading her to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

5. Investigation and Findings by the IO:
The IO recorded statements from the complainant, her husband, and other witnesses. The complainant and her husband refused medical examination initially. Statements from the complainant's family members, who were present in the house, contradicted her allegations, stating no such incident occurred.

6. Refusal of Medical Examination:
The complainant and her husband refused medical examination on 07.11.2015, stating it would be futile as they had engaged in sexual intercourse since the alleged incident. A subsequent medical examination on 20.11.2015 showed no evidence of rape.

7. Statements and Affidavits from Witnesses:
Statements from the complainant's brother-in-law and his wife, who lived in the same house, denied any incident of rape. They attributed the complaint to financial disputes. Affidavits from other witnesses also supported this view.

8. Final Report by the IO and Subsequent Protest Petition:
The IO submitted a Final Report on 29.11.2015, concluding no such incident occurred. The complainant filed a protest petition, which was allowed, leading to the summoning of the accused.

9. High Court's Refusal to Quash Criminal Proceedings:
The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings, stating that at this stage, only a prima facie case is to be seen, and the disputed facts cannot be adjudicated upon under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. Scope and Ambit of Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it concludes that continuing them would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court referred to several precedents, including State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which enumerated categories where such power could be exercised.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the present case fell under Category 7 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, indicating that the criminal proceedings were maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The Court held that the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thus allowed the appeal, quashing the entire criminal proceedings.

← Previous Next →