Kailashi Bai Vs.
Aarti Arya & ANR.  INSC 926 (27 April 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3277/2008) KAILASHI BAI .. APPELLANT vs.
JUD GMENT Dr. ARIJIT
Challenge in this
appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh
High Court allowing the petition filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short `the Code').
Background facts, in
nutshell, are as follows:
respondent No.1 was married to Mukesh Arya (hereinafter referred to as
`deceased') in the year 2003. According to the prosecution, the deceased was
working as Civil Judge and was posted at the relevant time at Itarsi.
Respondent No.1's in laws did not approve of the marriage as the respondent
No.1 belonged to an upper caste while the deceased belonged to the Scheduled
Caste. A child was born to them. The deceased consumed some poisonous substance
and lost his life on 18/3/2007.
-2- It was the case
of the prosecution that during enquiry it surfaced that the respondent No.1
accused used to harass the deceased and subject to mental cruelty as she
belonged to higher caste and she did not like association of deceased with his
parents and relatives. This was stated to be the ground of suicide and the
accused abetted the suicide. Charge sheet was filed in Court of Magistrate. An
application under Section 482 of the Code was filed questioning the order
passed by learned Magistrate.
The High Court took
note of the fact that the present appellant's statement on a fair reading did
not disclose any offence. The High Court noted even at the time of marriage,
the parties knew caste of the deceased and the accused and therefore the
question of that being a factor for harassing the deceased. Leading to his
suicide cannot be believed. It was also found that there was no material to
show that the accused wanted the deceased to stay separately from his parents.
Accordingly, the proceedings were quashed.
It was held that
ingredients of Section 306 were not established.
Learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the parameters of exercise of power under Sec.482
of the Code were not kept in mind by the High Court.
In any event, it was
not a matter which was to be dealt with in trial. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 supported the judgment.
Exercise of power
under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not
the rule. The Section does not confer any new powers 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 -3- 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
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 -4- 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. When no offence is disclosed by the
complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess
what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if
the allegations are accepted in toto.
In R. P. Kapur v.
State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) this Court summarized some categories of
cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the
(i) where it
manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or
continuance e.g. want of sanction;
ii where the
allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face
value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove
-5- In dealing with
the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case
where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly
inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not
ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable
or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not
be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant
facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash
vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not
an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death.
The scope of exercise
of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the
High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to
prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal (1992 Supp (1) 335). A note of caution was, however, added that the power
should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The
illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows:
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 cognizable 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.
-7- 6 Where there is
an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (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 Act concerned, 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."
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.
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 -8- 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). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of
the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether
a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion
that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In
a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash
the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not
disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. 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 under Section 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 -9- 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. (See:
Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar (1990 Supp SCC 686), State of Bihar v. P. P.
Sharma (AIR 1996 SC 309), Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995 (6)
SCC 194), State of Kerala v. O. C. Kuttan (AIR 1999 SC 1044), State of U.P. v.
O. P. Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 (2)
SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi) (AIR 1996 SC 2983) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3)
The above position
was recently highlighted in State of Karnataka M. Devendrappa and Another (2002
(3) SCC 89).
Section 306 deals
with abetment of suicide and Section 107 deals with abetment of a thing. They
read as follows:
of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such
suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a
thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who:- -10- First- Instigates any
person to do that thing; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1- A
person who, by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does
anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
There is no doubt
that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be done only
in exceptional cases and where there is prima facie material trial was to be
held. But on the peculiar facts of the case highlighted above, we are of the
view that the High Court was right in exercising its jurisdiction under Sec.482
of the Code. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal which is
.J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)