Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiva Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.55076 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SHIVA SONI S/O SHRI RAMGOPAL SONI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O NEAR RAM MANDIR RUDRA
GALI MAHATMA GANDHI WARD KATNI
POLICE STATION KOTWALI THANA KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NANCY SONI W/O SAGAR SONI D/O SHRI
RAMGOPAL SONI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O NEAR RAM
MANDIR RUDRA GALI MAHATMA GANDHI
WARD KATNI POLICE STATION KOTWALI
THANA KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY MS. DOLLY SONI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION CANTONMENT
(CANT) THANA JABALPUR, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MEGHA SARAF W/O SHIVA SONI D/O SHRI
MOHIT SARAF, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O
HOUSE NO. 389 COLONY NO. 09 SADAR
BAZAR JABALPUR, POLICE STATION
CANTONMENT (CANT) DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI MANHAR DIXIT - PANEL LAWYER)
............................................................................................................................................
2 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR dated 18/09/2023 registered at Police Station Cantonment, District Jabalpur in Crime No.259/2023 for offence under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as further proceedings in RCT No.9490/2023 pending in the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur.
2. It is the case of applicants that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint before Police Station Cantonment to the effect that her marriage was performed with applicant No.1 on 10/05/2023 as per Hindu rights and rituals. Immediately after the marriage, respondent No.2 was harassed by applicants and their family members for demand of dowry and Creta car. Even Streedhan of respondent No.2 has been taken away by applicants No.1 & 2 and their family members. Applicant No.1 and her in-laws took signature of respondent No.2 on blank stamp paper. It is the case of applicants that on 22/05/2023, parents of respondent No.2 came to her matrimonial house and after some altercation on the question of demand of dowry and Creta car, respondent No.2 went back to her parental house. Thereafter on 29/06/2023, applicant No.1 along with his family members went to parental house of respondent No.2 to take her back to her nuptial house but she refused to come back because she had an apprehension to her life. Applicants and their family members got the signatures of respondent No.2 on an agreement and went away thereby abusing and threatening her that she will be divorced and applicant No.1 will 3 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 remarry. It is the case of applicants that on 18/09/2023, respondent No.2 lodged FIR with regard to cruelty just three & half months after coming back from her nuptial house. It is submitted that prior thereto there was not a single complaint by respondent No.2. On 24/07/2023, respondent No.2 had made a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur in which she had build up a totally different story against applicants and their family members. The complaint was investigated by Ms. Kamla Patel, Investigating Officer on 19/07/2023. Two different stories have been cooked up by respondent No.2. Copy of complaint which was made on 24/07/2023 has not been provided to the applicants. Ms. Kamla Patel, Investigating Officer did not investigate the first complaint which was given on 24/07/2023 because contents of the said complaint had not disclosed the commission of cognizable offence. Accordingly, Ms. Kamla Patel, I.O. and respondent No.2 entered into a conspiracy and a new complaint was made and FIR has also been registered on the same date. It is the case of applicants that respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint and FIR only on the basis of her stay in her matrimonial house for 12 days after the marriage.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that all the allegations made against the applicants do not make out a prima facie cognizable offence. Applicants did not commit any cruelty with respondent No.2 and did not pressurize her to bring any Creta car or demanded any dowry. Ms. Kamla Patel, I.O. did not make any investigation on the first application given by respondent No.2 which makes the matter suspicious. Applicant had paid money to respondent No.2 on various occasions prior to marriage and he is still making payment of the same and therefore, there is no question of any demand of dowry or Creta car.
4 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023The story developed by respondent No.2 is completely false as they were residing happily prior to and after their marriage. Respondent No.2 is a law student and therefore, it is beyond imagination that she would sign any blank document. Bald allegations against the applicants do not make out any offence. Accordingly, it is prayed that not only the FIR may be quashed but criminal proceedings may also be quashed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for applicants.
5. Before considering the submissions made by counsel for the applicants, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C at the stage of quashment of FIR or charge-sheet.
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. .......
7. 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 5 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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.
8. 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 of 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 6 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 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."
9. The Supreme Court in the case of XYZ v. State of Gujarat 7 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337 has held as under :
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 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) 8 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718 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 ..........."
11. 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 any offence or make out a case against the accused.
* * * (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.
9 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023Mohd. 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."
12. 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 recorded his finding as to on what basis and reasons, a case is made out for any interference or not.
13. 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 to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is 10 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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.
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 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 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 11 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 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. 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 12 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its 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 13 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.
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 universal application and what was the principle relating to disputes involving cases of a predominantly civil nature with or without criminal intent.
14. 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.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v.
14 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023State 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.
16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226 has held as under :
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 15 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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.
17. 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 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with clean hands.16 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023
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 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.) 17 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023
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 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 18 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 civil wrong as also a 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 19 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 Bihar v. P.P. Sharma which reads as under: (SCC p.
20 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023271, 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 the 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 21 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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.
18. 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.
19. 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 criminal 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 22 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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.]"
(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.)
20. 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 23 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for."
21. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021 passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021 has held that a detailed and meticulous appreciation of evidence at the stage of 482 of CrPC is not permissible and should not be done. In the case of Kunwar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-
"8........At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia..........."
22. Thus, it is clear that this Court while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot consider the correctness of the allegations as well as the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. If the un- controverted allegations do not make out an offence, only then this Court can quash the proceedings.
23. Applicant No.1 is husband whereas applicant No.2 is sister-in-law of respondent No.2. As per the complaint made by respondent No.2, it is clear that the applicant No.1 made a demand of Creta car immediately after 3-4 days of marriage which was discussed by respondent No.2 with her mother-in-law, father-in-law and applicant No.2 but they ignored the same. On the contrary, it is alleged that the gold ornaments which were given by her parents at the time of marriage were also snatched and insisted that she should come back to her matrimonial house only after 24 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 bringing a Creta car. When she informed this incident to her parents, then they came to Katni and discussed with the applicants and her in- laws. Thereafter, she was compelled to sign on the blank stamp papers. In the year 2023, when her mother and maternal uncle came to her matrimonial house for taking away her to her parental house, then applicants as well as her in-laws scolded that she had not brought a car and had brought nothing in the dowry. On 29/06/2023 when her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law came to her parental home to take her back, then she refused to go as she was apprehensive of her life. Then not only she was beaten and abused but also got her signatures on the agreement. Applicant No.1 and in-laws of respondent No.2 threatened that they would get the applicant No.1 remarry. It was further alleged that the applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 had treated her mentally and physically with cruelty for not bringing sufficient dowry and had also snatched her gold ornaments.
24. If un-controverted allegations are taken on their face value, then it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. In her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., she had specifically stated that on the question of demand of car she was beaten by applicant No.1. Even it is specifically alleged that when the entire incident was narrated to her mother-in-law and applicant No.2, then applicant No.2 also insisted that her parents must give a car to her brother because nothing has been given in dowry. There is a specific allegation that ornaments were snatched by applicants.
25. By referring to various photographs which have been filed as annexures, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that prior to marriage, relationship between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 25 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 were very cordial and even applicant No.1 had purchased and gifted Mobile phone of Samsung company prior to marriage. In the photograph, they are seen very happy. Even after the marriage, photographs show that the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing happily. Whatsapp chats between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 indicates that the allegations are false. It is further submitted that even after marriage, certain amounts were transferred to the account of respondent No.2. Thus, there is no question of demand of dowry by the applicants.
26. The submissions made by counsel for applicants are based on their defence which is based on private documents which are required to be proved as per law and this Court cannot take judicial notice of the same.
27. So far as the personal allegations made against Ms. Kamla Patel, I.O. is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that for the reasons best known to the applicants, Ms. Kamla Patel, I.O. has not been impleaded in her personal capacity.
28. It is well established principle of law that this Court cannot consider the allegations made against a person unless and until that person is impleaded as a respondent and an opportunity is given to him/her to explain the allegations.
29. Since Ms. Kamla Patel has not been impleaded, therefore personal allegations made by applicants against her cannot be considered.
30. The Supreme Court in the case of Taramani Parakh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 260 has held as under:-
26 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023"10. The law relating to quashing is well settled. If the allegations are absurd or do not make out any case or if it can be held that there is abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed but if there is a triable case the court does not go into reliability or otherwise of the version or the counter-version. In matrimonial cases, the courts have to be cautious when omnibus allegations are made particularly against relatives who are not generally concerned with the affairs of the couple. We may refer to the decisions of this Court dealing with the issue.
11. Referring to earlier decisions, in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687, it was observed : (SCC pp. 482-84, para 27) "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.
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 a criminal offence are 27 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 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 28 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 '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 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.
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 29 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 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 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 State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 30 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703, Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497, Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa, (1995) 4 SCC 41 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 634, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 283, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412, V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356, Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu, (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297, Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar, (1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192, Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar, (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19, Savita v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571 and S.M. Datta v. State of 31 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 Gujarat, (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201.] 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."
* * *
14. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be held that even if the allegations are taken as proved no case is made out. There are allegations against Respondent 2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.
15. The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286, the parents of the 32 M.Cr.C No.55076/2023 husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him.
This Court found no cogent material against the other accused. In Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar, (2010) 10 SCC 673 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 94, the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier Section 498-A IPC case. This Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120, case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused."
31. Thus, it is held that un-controverted allegations made in the FIR do make out a cognizable offence and whether those allegations are correct, credible or reliable, cannot be judged by this Court at this stage. Even otherwise, this petition has been filed merely on the ground of defences which are required to be proved by applicants during the trial.
32. As no case is made out warranting interference, application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE S.M. Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2024.02.21 09:41:46 +05'30'