Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1662 - SUPREME COURTScope 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.
|