Sanjeet Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar & ANR.  INSC 829 (27 April 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5908 of 2007) Sanjeet Kumar ....Appellant Versus
State of Bihar & Anr. ....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna
High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `Code'). The petition was filed by the
respondent no.2. In the petition challenge was to the order dated 22.9.2003
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Trial No.286 of 2003. The
petition filed by the present respondent no.2 for discharge under Section 245
of the Code was rejected. The stand of the applicant before the High Court was
that as a counter blast to certain incidents, the petition had been filed
belatedly. The present appellant opposed the petition taking the stand that
ultimately it was a question of defence and could not have been agitated in an
application under Section 482 of the Code.
High Court noted that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the present
respondent no.2 charge sheet had been filed. According to him, the original
occurrence took place on 5.5.2000 and the complaint was filed after a week as a
counter blast. The High Court by practically a non-reasoned order has allowed
the application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code. It is the stand of
learned counsel for the appellant that ultimately what the High Court has done
is to consider the possible defence which is beyond the scope of consideration
under Section 482 of the Code.
is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice.
counsel for the State submitted that the State has a very limited role to play
in a complaint case.
find that the High Court has only referred to the respective stand of the
parties and has come to an abrupt conclusion that since the complaint case was
filed after filing of the police case by the present respondent no.2, it was
filed with ulterior and oblique motive. That certainly is not the way to deal
with an application under Section 482 of the Code.
parameters where exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can
be exercised either on proof of abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice have been highlighted in several cases. In State of
Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), it was held
that though it will not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised, certain illustrative cases were indicated. They are as follows:
(1) Where the
allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the
allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizabe offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the
uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the
allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the
allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(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.
note of caution was indicated in the following words:
"103. We also
give a note of caution to the effect that 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 circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit
the matter for a fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the
parameters of Section 482 of the Code.
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)