Mushtaq
Ahmad Vs. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi & Ors [1996] INSC 165 (31 January 1996)
Bharucha
S.P. (J) Bharucha S.P. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 440 JT 1996 (1) 656 1996 SCALE (1)606
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
Heard
the counsel appearing for the parties.
The
appellant herein filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau
alleging commission of offences under sections 406, 409, 420 and 467 IPC by the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ('respondents' for short). The learned Magistrate took
cognizance upon the complaint and then recorded the statement of the appellant
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On being satisfied from the complaint, the documents
filed therewith and the statement of the appellant that the above offences were
made out against the respondents he issued process against them. Aggrieved
thereby the respondents filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for
quashing the complaint and the proceeding arising therefrom which was allowed
by the High Court with a finding that the complaint was false, frivolous and
vexatious and a direction upon the appellant to pay Rs.5,000/- to the
respondents as costs. Hence this appeal.
Having
perused the impugned judgment in the light of the complaint and its
accompaniments we are constrained to say, that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in passing the impugned judgment and
order. It is rather unfortunate that though the High Court (1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335) wherein this Court has enumerated by way of illustration the categories of
cases in which power to quash complaint or FIR can be exercised, it did not
keep in mind - much less adhered to - the following note of caution given
therein :- "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." In the
complaint the appellant averred that he was a teacher of Madrasa Faiz-e-Am
since the year 1974 and at the material time the respondents were the Manager,
Principal, Teacher and Member of the Managing Committee of the school
respectively. In the year 1985 he went on leave to get higher education in
Saudi Arabia and after coming back from there in 1988 when he went to join the
School he found that his salaries and dearness allowances for the above period
had been drawn by them from the Government funds and, by forgoing his
signatures, purported payments thereof to him were shown. According to the
complaint, the respondents had thereby committed breach of trust of Government
money. In support of the above allegations made in the complaint copies of the
salary statements of the relevant periods were produced. Inspite of the fact
that the complaint and the documents annexed thereto clearly made out a, prima
facie, case for cheating, breach of trust and forgery, the High Court proceeded
to consider the version of the respondents given out in their petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis that of the appellant and entered into the
debatable area of deciding which of the version was true, - a course wholly
impermissible in view of the above quoted observations in the case of Bhajan Lal
(supra).
For
the foregoing reason, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and direct the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in
accordance with law.
Back
Pages: 1 2