Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURTInherent powers u/s 482 of the Code - Challenged the Order passed by High Court - quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged - Jurisdiction of Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') to register the FIR - commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 167, 168, 177A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and Sections 13(2) and 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') - HELD THAT:- If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. Coming to the pivotal stand of respondent no.1, as has been rightly submitted by leaned counsel for the appellant, there is no notification revoking the earlier notification. The letter on which great emphasis has been laid by the respondent no.1 and highlighted by the High Court, the authority to write the letter has not been indicated. It has also not been established that the person was authorized to take a decision. In any event, the same does not meet requirements of Article 166 of the Constitution. The letter is not even conceptually a notification. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that there was a notification rescinding earlier notification. The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings instituted on the basis of the FIR lodged. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
|