Madhya Pradesh High Court
Noshad Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
1 MCRC-52724-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52724 of 2024
NOSHAD KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Singh Rajpoot - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
ORDER
This application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashment
of F.I.R. in Crime No.499/2024 registered at Police Station Kampoo, District
Gwalior for offence under Sections 85, 294, 351 (3), 3 (5) of BNS.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that earlier complainant had
lodged F.I.R. in Crime No.262/2019 at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34, 294 of IPC and under Section
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However, later on, she turned hostile and
accordingly, by judgement dated 04.12.2021, applicants were acquitted and now
again respondent No.2 has lodged F.I.R.. It is submitted that now it has become
the habit of respondent No.2 to lodge the F.I.R. and thereafter to enter into a
compromise.
3. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is
submitted that after having persuaded the respondent No.2 to enter into
compromise, it appears that applicants have started harassing the complainant
physically and mentally again, which shows the attitude of applicants. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
2 MCRC-52724-2024
submitted that investigation should not be stifled in the mid way.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. For quashment of F.I.R, it is well established principle of law that F.I.R
should not be quashed in mid way thereby killing an unborn baby. Only if the
allegations made in the F.I.R do not make out a cognizable offence, then the same
can be quashed.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2018) 5 SCC 678 has held as under :
“10. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
perusing the material available on record we are of the opinion that
the High Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without proper
investigation being conducted by the police. Further, it is no more res
integra that Section 482 CrPC has to be utilised cautiously while
quashing the FIR. This Court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR
only after it comes to a conclusion that continuing investigation in
such cases would only amount to abuse of the process. …….
The Supreme Court in the case of Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported
in (2014) 15 SCC 221 has held as under :
“5. It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 CrPC should not
be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the
statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in
accordance with the provisions of CrPC. As per law settled by a
catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie
disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is
not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where
the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan,
reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547 has held as under :-
“9. In State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, emphasising that the
Court will not normally interfere with an investigation and will
permit the inquiry into the alleged offence, to be completed, this
Court highlighted the necessity of a proper investigation observing
thus: (SCC pp. 597-98, paras 65-66)
“65. … An investigation is carried on for the purpose ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:229823 MCRC-52724-2024
gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an
offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a
proper investigation in the interests of justice becomes
necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and
for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper
investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the
offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and
the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of
justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person
who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be
punished for the same. If the court interferes with the proper
investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the
offence will go unpunished to the serious detriment of the
welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is
on the basis of this principle that the court normally does not
interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has
been disclosed. …
66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each
particular case. … If on a consideration of the relevant
materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the
court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the
offence and will generally allow the 26 investigation into the
offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the
offence.” (emphasis supplied)
10. On a similar issue under consideration, in Jeffrey J. Diermeier v.
State of W.B., while explaining the scope and ambit of the inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, one of us
(D.K. Jain, J.) speaking for the Bench, has observed as follows: (SCC
p. 251, para 20)
“20. … The section itself 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. Nevertheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction of the court. Undoubtedly, the power
possessed by the High Court under the said provision is very
wide but it is not unlimited. It has to be exercised sparingly,
carefully and cautiously, ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for which alone the court exists. It needs
little emphasis that the inherent jurisdiction does not confer an
arbitrary power on the High Court to act according to whim or
caprice. The power exists to prevent abuse of authority and not
to produce injustice.”
The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
4 MCRC-52724-2024
“14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the impugned order and other material placed on record, we
are of the view that the High Court exceeded the scope of its
jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the
proceedings. Even before the investigation is completed by the
investigating agency, the High Court entertained the writ petition,
and by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court, further
investigation was stalled. Having regard to the allegations made by
the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by clicking
inappropriate pictures of the appellant has blackmailed her or not,
and further the 2nd respondent has continued to interfere by calling
Shoukin Malik or not are the matters for investigation. In view of 27
the serious allegations made in the complaint, we are of the view that
the High Court should not have made a roving inquiry while
considering the application filed under Section 482 CrPC. Though the
learned counsel have made elaborate submissions on various
contentious issues, as we are of the view that any observation or
findings by this Court, will affect the investigation and trial, we
refrain from recording any findings on such issues. From a perusal of
the order of the High Court, it is evident that the High Court has got
carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at, between the
parties, and recorded a finding that the physical relationship of the
appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual. When it is the
allegation of the appellant, that such document itself is obtained
under threat and coercion, it is a matter to be investigated. Further,
the complaint of the appellant about interference by the 2nd
respondent by calling Shoukin Malik and further interference is also
a matter for investigation. By looking at the contents of the complaint
and the serious allegations made against 2nd respondent, we are of
the view that the High Court has committed error in quashing the
proceedings. (Underline supplied)The Supreme Court in the case of S. Martin (Supra) has held as under :
7. In our view the assessment made by the High Court at a stage
when the investigation was yet to be completed, is completely
incorrect and uncalled for……………..
The Supreme Court in the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in
(2010) 5 SCC 600 has held as under :
17. In the past, this Court has even laid down some guidelines for the
exercise of inherent power by the High Courts to quash criminal
proceedings in such exceptional cases. We can refer to the decision in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to take note of two such guidelines
which are relevant for the present case: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“(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 anySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:229825 MCRC-52724-2024
offence or make out a case against the accused. 28 * * *
(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.”
18. It is of course a settled legal proposition that in a case where there
is sufficient evidence against the accused, which may establish the
charge against him/her, the proceedings cannot be quashed. In
Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. this Court
observed that a criminal complaint or a charge-sheet can only be
quashed by superior courts in exceptional circumstances, such as
when the allegations in a complaint do not support a prima facie case
for an offence.
19. Similarly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque this Court has held that criminal proceedings can be
quashed but such a power is to be exercised sparingly and only when
such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically
laid down in the statutory provisions themselves. It was further
observed that superior courts “may examine the questions of fact”
when the use of the criminal law machinery could be in the nature of
an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice.
20. In Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala this Court relied on
earlier precedents to clarify that a High Court while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint
but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases.
In fact it was observed: (SCC pp. 478, para 25) “25. … ’16. … One
of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person
who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and
humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.’*
“
The Supreme Court in the case of Sangeeta Agrawal v. State of U.P.,
reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336 has held as under :
8. In our view, the Single Judge ought to have first set out the brief
facts of the case with a view to understand the factual matrix of the
case and then examined the challenge made to the proceedings in the
light of the principles of law laid down by this Court and then 29
recorded his finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case is made
out for any interference or not.
The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 has held as under :
27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two
provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine
line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:229826 MCRC-52724-2024
enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should
exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is
inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best
and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we
are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper
exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of
charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section
482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:
27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under
Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care
and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in
terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
2 7 . 2 . The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and
the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence
or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion
and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied
then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous
examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the
case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge
or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to
prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave
error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court 30 should be loath to interfere, at the threshold,
to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the
provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very
initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings,
such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the
right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute
the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an
oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the
record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise
and constitute a “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and
does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court
may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court
would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe
is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record
to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which
the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily
with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading toSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:229827 MCRC-52724-2024
injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a
full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the
investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or
conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to
an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not
mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under
Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external
materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no
offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal.
The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed
therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous
prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court
should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its 31 quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to
marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the
Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well
within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds
that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the
interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The
power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and
substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar GuhaMadhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre; Janata
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh
Gill; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.;
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of U.P. v.
O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa; Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson
Belthissor v. State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of
U.P.; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu;
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar v. P.P.
Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan and S.M. Datta v. State of
Gujarat.]
27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably
cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to
exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual
foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be
reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the
premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not
appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the
requirements of the offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
8 MCRC-52724-2024
28. At this stage, we may also notice that the principle stated by this
Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was reconsidered and
explained in two subsequent judgments of this Court in State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma and M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha. In the subsequent
judgment, the Court held that, that judgment did not declare a law of
32 universal application and what was the principle relating to
disputes involving cases of a predominantly civil nature with or
without criminal intent.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand ,
reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319 has held as under :
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew our attention to
the same decision which is relied upon in the impugned judgment by
the High Court i.e. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In the said
decision, this Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any
specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to when the power
under Section 482 CrPC could be or is to be exercised. This Court,
however, gave an exhaustive list of various kinds of cases wherein
such power could be exercised. In para 103 of the said judgment, this
Court, however, hastened to add that as a note of caution it must be
stated 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 for the Court would not be justified in embarking
upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the first information report or in the complaint
and that the extraordinary or the inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or
caprice.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar
reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 has held as under :
5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when
approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate
the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of
the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception
has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem
Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra
Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an appropriate case
where the document relied upon is a public document or where
veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can be
considered.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh
reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
9 MCRC-52724-2024
18. While 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/Court. It is true that the Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all
relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing
process, otherwise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At
the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an
accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure
without full-fledged enquiry.
19. Though the High Court may exercise its power relating to
cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised
sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or
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 or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal
bar provided in any of the provisions of the Code or in any other
enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient
material to show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step
in.
20. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section
482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its
exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the
inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate
prosecution. We make it clear that 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 inherent powers under Section 482.
The Supreme Court in the case of Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri
Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 has held as under :
11. Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is very
wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in
exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the High
Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also courts of
justice and possess inherent powers to remove injustice. The inherent
power of the High Court is an inalienable attribute of the position it
holds with respect to the courts subordinate to it. These powers are
partly administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial
when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and for
securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section 482 isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2298210 MCRC-52724-2024
discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to exercise the
discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.
12. In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will not enter
into any finding of facts, particularly, when the matter has been
concluded by concurrent finding of facts of the two courts below.
Inherent powers under Section 482 include powers to quash FIR,
investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High
Court or any court subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and
ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice,
prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,
depending upon the facts of a given case. The Court can always take
note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising
its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These powers are neither
limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However,
such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with
caution.
13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can
be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant
and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the
statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions
provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State and B.S. Joshi v. State
of Haryana). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High
Court will not exercise its powers 35 under this section, specially
when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
14. The inherent power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do
real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone courts
exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent the abuse. It is,
however, not necessary that at this stage there should be a meticulous
analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case ends
in conviction or acquittal. (Vide Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna
Kumar; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque.)
15. It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to
on what ground the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code should be exercised. But some attempts have been made
in that behalf in some of the decisions of this Court vide State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, Rupan Deol
Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Indian Oil Corpn.v. NEPC India
Ltd.
16. In the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal this Court
considered in detail the provisions of Section 482 and the power of
the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court
summarised the legal position by laying down the following
guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their
inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (SCC pp. 378-79,
para 102)
“(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
11 MCRC-52724-2024
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 36 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 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 the 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.”
17. In Indian Oil Corpn.v. NEPC India Ltd. a petition under Section
482 was filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a
common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the
complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court. While
deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following principles:
(SCC p. 748, para 12)
1. The High Courts should not exercise their inherent powers to
repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to quash criminal
complaints should be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.
2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce
the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the criminal complaint, merely on
the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail,
the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of
the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is bereft
of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for
making out the alleged offence.
3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out: (a) purely
a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civilSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2298212 MCRC-52724-2024
wrong as also a 37 criminal offence. A commercial transaction
or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action
for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal
offence.
18. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo it has been held that
probabilities of the prosecution version cannot be analysed at this
stage. Likewise, the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of
secondary importance. The relevant passage reads thus: (SCC p. 550,
para 11)
“11. … 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.”
19. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre this Court held as under: (SCC p. 695, para 7)
“7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at
the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by
the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as
made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to
take into consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so
on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique
purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an
ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the court may while taking into consideration the
special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage.”
20. This Court, while reconsidering the judgment in Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia, has consistently observed that where matters are
also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court
may consider “special facts”, “special features” and quash the
criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes
between the parties.
21. The said judgment in Madhavrao case was reconsidered and
explained by this Court in State of 38 Bihar v. P.P. Sharma which
reads as under: (SCC p. 271, para 70)
“70. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao
Angre also does not help the respondents. In that case the
allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created
tenancy of trust property to favour the third party. A private
complaint was laid for the offence under Section 467 read with
Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC which the High Court
refused to quash under Section 482. This Court allowed the
appeal and quashed the proceedings on the ground that even on
its own contentions in the complaint, it would be a case of
breach of trust or a civil wrong but no ingredients of criminal
offence were made out. On those facts and also due to theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2298213 MCRC-52724-2024
relation of the settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as
the son and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed
the appeal. … Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance to
the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this Court
laid down as a proposition of law that in every case the court
would examine at the preliminary stage whether there would be
ultimate chances of conviction on the basis of allegation and
exercise of the power under Section 482 or Article 226 to quash
the proceedings or the charge-sheet.”
22. Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia does not lay
down a law of universal application. Even as per the law laid down
therein, the Court cannot examine the facts/evidence, etc. in every
case to find out as to whether there is sufficient material on the basis
of which the case would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao
Jiwajirao Scindia is applicable in cases where the Court finds that the
dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in nature and that the
parties should be given a chance to reach a compromise e.g.
matrimonial, property and family disputes, etc. etc. The superior
courts have been given inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the
process of court; where the Court finds that the ends of justice may
be met by quashing the proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as
the end of achieving justice is higher than the end of merely
following the law. It is not necessary for the Court to hold a full-
fledged inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the
investigating agency to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or acquittal.
The Supreme Court in the case of M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373 has held as under :-
17. It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the
allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that
where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make
out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in
quashing the proceedings.
The Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha v. Alok Kumar Srivastav
reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682 has held as under :
30. Interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be where a
clear case for such interference is made out. Frequent and uncalled
for interference even at the preliminary stage by the High Court may
result in causing obstruction in progress of the inquiry in a criminalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:2298214 MCRC-52724-2024
case which may not be in the public interest. But at the same time the
High Court cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if the interest of
justice so required where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no fair minded and informed observer can ever reach a just
and proper conclusion as to the existence of sufficient grounds for
proceeding. In such cases refusal to exercise the jurisdiction may
equally result in injustice more particularly in cases where the
complainant sets the criminal law in motion with a view to exert
pressure and harass the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
31. It is well settled and needs no restatement that the saving of
inherent power of the High Court in criminal matters is intended to
achieve a salutary public purpose
“which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. [If such
power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice.]”40 (See
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, SCC p. 703, para 7.)
32. We are conscious that
“inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory
power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in
the rarest of rare cases”.
(See Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, SCC p. 451, para
2.)
The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in (2019)
10 SCC 686 has held as under :
17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the
submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we
are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is
not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the High
Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the
petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the
evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case,
went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a
conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while
exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage,
when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent
court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.
Thus, it is clear that although this Court cannot make a roving enquiry at
this stage, but if the uncontroverted allegations donot make out any offence, then
this Court can quash the F.I.R.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22982
15 MCRC-52724-2024
7. In the present case, complainant had lodged F.I.R. in the year 2019 and
on the basis of the same, applicants were prosecuted. During the pendency of trial,
it appears that a compromise was entered into between applicants and respondent
No.2, as a result, she did not support the case of prosecution. If the applicants have
started harassing respondent No.2 physically and mentally again, then it is a
matter to be investigated by the Police. Since the allegations made in F.I.R do
make out a cognizable offence and F.I.R in question cannot be quashed by
applying the principle of double jeopardy for the simple reason that the previous
trial was in respect of physical and mental cruelty committed by applicants prior
to 2019 and present F.I.R. is in respect of subsequent events, no case is made out
warranting interference.
8. This application fails and is hereby dismissed .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 20-Dec-24
11:03:22 AM