Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Kumar & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh& Others on 22 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 114 of 2021 Reserved on: 23.11.2023.
.
Date of Decision: __12.2023 Sanjay Kumar & another ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh& others of ....Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3-State.
Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Rakesh Kainthla,Judge The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0027 dated 07.03.2020, registered at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341& 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and consequent proceedings arising out of the same. It has been asserted that petitioners are performing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 2 their duties with sincerity, honesty, and devotion. No complaint was ever made against their work and conduct. Respondent No.4 is a quarrelsome person and his behaviour towards his colleagues .
and other staff members has not been good since the date of his joining in Government Senior Secondary School Khundian, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. His explanations were called by of the Principal on 15.05.2019, 29.05.2019 and 17.09.2019. The School Management Committee also passed a resolution dated 30.05.2019 against respondent No.4. The Principal also made a rt complaint against respondent No. 4 on 17.09.2019 to the Deputy Director, Higher Education, District Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. He also issued a memorandum dated 19.09.2019. The Principal issued an office order dated 03.03.2020, directing the petitioners, other lecturers and teachers to conduct the annual examination.
Another order was issued restraining the staff members from entering the examination hall except when they were on duty.
Respondent No.4 tried to enter the examination hall with a mobile phone. When the Assistant Coordinator tried to stop him, respondent No.4 manhandled him. Centre Superintendent, Government Senior Secondary School Khundian, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra H.P. made a complaint regarding this ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 3 fact on 07.03.2020. The Principal and School Management Committee also made a complaint against respondent no. 4 on 07.03.2020. Respondent No.4 made a false complaint with the .
police. An F.I.R. No. 0027 dated 07.03.2020 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with section 34 of IPC. The Principal made a complaint of against respondent no.4 on 18.03.2020 to the Director, Higher Education, Shimla, mentioning his misconduct. The police prepared a challan and presented it before the Court of learned rt Judicial Magistrate First Class (II), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. The members of the School Management Committee were called by the Officer deputed by Deputy Director Higher Education Kangra at Dharamshala on 21.08.2020 and their statements were recorded. The police presented the Challan in F.I.R. No. 0027/2020 before the Gram Panchayat Khundian but respondent no.4 did not cooperate with the trial. The statement of Principal Government Senior Secondary School Khundian, Tehsil Khudian, District Kangra H.P. was also recorded, in which it was stated that no incident had taken place as mentioned in the F.I.R. The Director of Higher Education, Shimla, issued a show cause notice to respondent no. 4 on 21.10.2020 to explain his position as to why ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 4 his services should not be terminated. Respondent No.4 has filed a petition for seeking the transfer of the complaint from Gram Panchayat to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dehra, .
District Kangra, H.P. The petitioners were discharging their duties on 07.03.2020 and a false F.I.R. was lodged against them to dissuade them from discharging their official duties. Complaints of have been made against respondent no.4. The petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged in the F.IR. and the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.4 to save himself. Respondent No. 4 is rt not cooperating with the proceedings pending before the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the present F.I.R. be quashed.
2. The State has filed a reply asserting that the police conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners before the Gram Panchayat Khundian for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 & 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners also made a complaint against respondent no. 4. A report was made under Section 186 of IPC. The police dealt with the complaints filed before it. Nothing adverse was stated by the teaching staff against respondent no.4 ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 5 in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
3. A separate reply was filed by respondent no.4 making preliminary submission regarding the petitioners having not come to the Court with clean hands. It was asserted that respondent no. 4 opposed mass copying which was being of managed by the petitioners and their colleagues. The motive behind the mass copying was to improve the results of the school.
rt Respondent no.4 had made a complaint to the higher authorities against the mass copying. The present petition has been filed just to pressurize respondent no. 4 to withdraw the F.I.R. lodged by him against the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed a complaint before the Deputy Director of Higher Education on 30.05.2019 against their colleagues. Respondent no.4 noticed that Mr. Sanjay Kumar, a subject teacher, was present in the examination hall during the exams. He objected to his presence and started to record the incident on his mobile camera. Teachers tried to stop respondent no.4 from recording the incident and forcefully threw his mobile phone after snatching it. They assaulted him and he went to the Hospital for his medical examination. The Medical Officer called the police. The clothes of ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 6 respondent no.4 were torn in the incident. F.I.R. is based on these facts. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
4. I have heard Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent no.1 to 3- State. No arguments were addressed on behalf of respondent no.4, although Mr Goldy of Kumar appeared on his behalf.
5. Mr Naresh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the rt petitioners submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged based on false facts. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. be quashed.
6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the police conducted the investigation fairly and prepared the challan against the petitioners, which is pending disposal. The allegations in the F.I.R. clearly show the commission of the cognizable offence. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at bar and have gone through the records carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 78. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC .
OnLine SC 765 wherein it was observed at page 716:-
"17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the quashing of a charge/proceedings either in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or together, as the case may be, has of engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the rt precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012)
9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986], this Court laid down the following guiding principles : (SCC pp. 482-84, para 27) "27. ...27.1. Though there are no limits to 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.
27.2. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 8 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 of cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in the exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in rt 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 predominantly give rise to 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, ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 9 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 to 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.
of 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.
rt 27.12. In the 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 the 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 a continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to deciding the admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the chargesheet, reported 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 ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 10 of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debitojustitiaei.e. to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which .
alone, the courts exist.
*** 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual of 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 rt appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
9. Similar is the judgment in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603 wherein it was observed:-
"26. Although we are not for verbosity in our judgments, a slightly detailed survey of the judicial precedents is in order. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 11 sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
.
(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 of report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation rt 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.::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 12
(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 of an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
rt 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."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It was laid down in CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379, that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The allegations are required to be proved during the trial based on evidence led before the Court. It was observed:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 13 has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini-trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion .
of the trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove of the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the rt allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not".
11. One other reason pointed by the High Court is that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 14 course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried."
11. This position was reiterated in Abhishek v. State of M.P., .
2023 SCC OnLine SC, wherein it was observed:
12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are well defined.
In V. Ravi Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu [(2019) 14 SCC 568], this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks of quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint.
rt In Neeharika Infrastructure (P). Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, decided on 13.04.2021], a 3-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately considered the scope and extent of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, such standard not being confused with the norm formulated in the context of the death penalty. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, but if the Court thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self- restraint imposed by law, and more particularly, the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335], the Court would have jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
12. It is apparent from these judgments that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 15 process or secure the ends of justice. The Court can quash the F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. However, it is not permissible for it to .
conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings.
13. It was submitted that the police had conducted the investigations and presented the challan. Hence, this court should of not exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon'ble rt Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 that the High Court will continue to exercise the power even if the charge sheet has been filed. It was observed:
"11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset that the contention that the appellants' quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat ((2011) 7 SCC 59)]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue, therefore, needs no further elucidation on our part."::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 16
14. Thus, the submission that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised after filing of the charge sheet is not acceptable.
.
15. The F.I.R. No. 27 of 2020 dated 07.03.2020 reads that respondent no.4 made a complaint to the police on 07.03.2020, that a paper of commerce was scheduled. Sanjay Kumar was the of Lecturer in Commerce. Sanjay Kumar tried to enter the examination hall. Respondent No.4 objected to the same. Sanjay rt Kumar, Abhishek and Ravi Kumar objected to the presence of respondent no.4 and gave him beatings. They also tore his jacket.
Respondent No. 4 recorded the incident on his mobile phone.
Respondent No.4 went to CHC Khundian for his treatment. As per endorsement the police had received the intimation from CHC Khundian and had also obtained the MLC No. 17 of 2020.
16. These allegations clearly show that respondent no. 4 was obstructed, beaten and criminally intimidated. These allegations disclose the commission of cognisable offence. The petitioners have relied on documents to show that respondent no.4 acted beyond his authority by entering the examination hall.
It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MCD v. Ram ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 17 Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC 1: 1983 SCC (Cri) 115, that the proceedings can be quashed if on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying the same no offence is constituted. It is not .
permissible to add or subtract anything. It was observed:
"10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test of is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 rt of the present Code."
17. Madras High Court also held in Ganga Bai v. Shriram, 1990 SCC OnLine MP 213: ILR 1992 MP 964: 1991 Cri LJ 2018, that the fresh evidence is not permissible or desirable in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:
"Proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be converted into a full-dressed trial. Shri Maheshwari filed a photostate copy of an order dated 28.7.1983, passed in Criminal Case No. 1005 of 1977, to which the present petitioner was not a party. Fresh evidence at this stage is neither permissible nor desirable. The respondent by filing this document is virtually introducing additional evidence, which is not the object of Section 482, Cr.P.C."
18. Andhra Pradesh High Court also took a similar view in Bharat Metal Box Company Limited, Hyderabad and Others vs. G. K. Strips Private Limited and another, 2004 STPL 43 AP, and held:
::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 18"9. This Court can only look into the complaint and the documents filed along with it and the sworn statements of the witnesses if any recorded. While judging the correctness of the proceedings, it cannot look into the documents, .
which are not filed before the lower Court. Section 482 Cr.PC debars the Court to look into fresh documents, in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and another, 2002 (1) Supreme 192. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:
"The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it of 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 rt 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 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 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 itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings".
19. A similar view was taken in Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, wherein it was observed at page 142:
"16. ... the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 19 proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of the trial."
20. This position was reiterated in Supriya Jain v. State of .
Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765wherein it was held:
13. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely on, if genuine, could be helpful for her defence at the trial of but the same are not material at the stage of deciding whether quashing as prayed for by her before the High Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reason to place any reliance on these three documents.
rt
21. A similar view was taken in Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1258, wherein it was observed:
55. Adverting to the aspect of the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under section 482, Cr. P.C., in a case where the offence of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing, is made, the law seems to be well settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate could not do, the High Courts may not do. We may not be understood to undermine the High Courts' powers saved by section 482, Cr. P.C.; such powers are always available to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the High Courts exist. However, the tests laid down for quashing an F.I.R. or criminal proceedings arising from a police report by the High Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. P.C. not being substantially different from the tests laid down for quashing ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 20 of a process issued under section 204 read with section 200, the High Courts on recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no .
offence is made out and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the legal process. This too, would be impermissible if the justice of a given case does not overwhelmingly so demand." (Emphasis supplied)
22. Therefore, it is not permissible to look into the material filed by the petitioners with the petition and the Court of has to rely upon the contents of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the police during the investigations.
rt
23. Even if the allegations in the petition are seen, they are trying to establish that respondent no. 4 was present in the examination hall without the authority. Even if this was the case, the petitioners had no authority to give beatings to him, therefore, the act of the petitioners cannot be justified by the averments made in the petition.
24. Since the allegations contained in the F.I.R. constitute the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed.
25. Consequently the present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS 2126. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.
.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge __December, 2023 (Ravinder) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 26/12/2023 20:32:04 :::CIS