Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 976 - SC - Indian LawsOppression and mismanagement - Criminal proceedings in exercise of power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - Embezzlement of crore of Rupees by affecting suitable change in the shareholding pattern - Held that:- Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of court and to quash the proceeding instituted on complaint but such power could be exercised only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of power Under Section 482. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. The letter dated 14.12.2006 which is the basis of taking cognizance was allegedly sent from the office of Respondent No. 4 Company under the signature of one colleague of the Appellant without the knowledge or prior permission of the Appellant and the said letter was never signed by the present Appellant. In our view, if that is so, it is open to the Appellant to take a defense and prove their contention during trial. Needless to say that the trial court shall consider the said contention during trial and record its findings. The High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure - appeal dismissed.
|