Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors  Insc 726 (11
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1067 of
2006) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.)
No.1714 of 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing petition filed for quashing the
First Information Report (in short the 'FIR') dated 30th April, 2005 registered
as Crime No.
124 of 2005 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 498
A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short the 'IPC') in Police Station in
Sector 39, Noida, District Goutam Budha Nagar.
3. On the basis of complaint filed, proceedings were initiated. The legality
of proceedings was questioned before the High Court by a petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
The main stand before the High Court was that even on a bare reading of the
FIR, it is clear that alleged commission of offence was not made out so far as
the appellant is concerned.
4. The High Court found that the application was to be rejected as no ground
was made out for quashing the proceedings. It however directed that the
appellant shall not be arrested till submission of the police report. Further
condition was stipulated that the appellant has to pay Rs.1000/- per month
towards maintenance to the respondent No.4. The order was passed purportedly
following the principles set out in this Court in Bodhisattwa Gautanm v.
Subhra Chakrabarti (AIR 1996 SC 922).
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that even if detailed
reading of the complaint is made, ingredients of the alleged offences are not
made out so far as the appellant is concerned. The appellant is the step mother
of the husband of the complainant. She was staying separately.
6. It is further submitted that if the articles are identified same shall be
returned and therefore the proceedings should not continue.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the
8. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It
only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of
the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the
Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down
any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that
may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express
provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and
duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in
the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High
Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any
express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are
necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of
justice on the principle "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur
et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a person
anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising
powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or
revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is
justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to
be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist. 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 would be an
abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers 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.
9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great
caution in its exercise.
The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power
is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to
stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a
State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case,
where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has
not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can
be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See: Janata
Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of
Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1)].
10. On a reading of the complaint which appears at page 23 of the paper
book, it is clear that there is no allegation so far as the respondent is
concerned, so far as it relates to a case covered under Section 498-A IPC.
There is no allegation of any torture for dowry so far as the present appellant
is concerned. The position is different so far as the allegations in relation
to Section 406 IPC is concerned.
11. There are allegations contained in the FIR relating to the applicability
of Section 406 IPC. If ultimately the prosecution is unable to substantiate the
plea, the results would follow. It is a case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be exercised so far as the allegations relating to Section 406 IPC are
concerned. But as noted, the position is different so far as Section 498-A IPC
is concerned. Therefore proceedings stand quashed so far as it relates to the
offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.
12. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1714 of 2006)
14. Leave granted.
15. Application filed before the High Court related to alleged commission of
offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. Undisputedly the charge
sheet has been filed and the same was not in question. Charges have also been
framed and, therefore, the question of quashing the FIR does not arise.
16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.