Gujarat High Court
Vimal Ghanshyambhai Maniyar vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14183 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
VIMAL GHANSHYAMBHAI MANIYAR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 23/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.I-No.53 of 2019 registered with Sihor Police Station, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 2.1. The complainant is an incharge police inspection in LCB, Bhavnagar since 2019. On 28.11.2018, secret information was received by Mahendrasinh Harisinh, B.N. 913, Gujarat State Monitoring Cell, Gandhinagar that in truck no. RJ-27-GB-5903 stock of liquor is loaded and is going towards Bhavnagar. A watch was kept near Sanathal circle chawki with panchas and at that time, said truck had passed. The said truck was chased by keeping a safe distance. The said truck routed through Bagodara, Pipli, Dholera, Bhavnagar Rajpara and reached Sihor near one Vadaval Masjid in GIDC area and gone inside one shed.
As the activity was found suspicious, the doors of the shed was knocked but it was not opened. Therefore, P.C. Mahendrasinh Harisinh jumped the wall and entered into the shed. As he sustained injury in his leg, he was sent to dispensary. During the raid, total four persons were apprehended and from their godown stock of English liquor bottles was found out. Therefore, prohibition offence being C.R.No. 308/2018 was registered with Sihor Police Station under section 81, 83, 116-8 of the Prohibition Act The accused arrested were (1) Vimal Ghanshyambhal Maniyar (2) Manishbhal Nalinbhai Parmar (3) Shashikant @ Montu Ramnikbhai Solanki and (4) Parvin Avasing Jat. From the accused persons mobile phones were recovered. Details of sim cards of those mobile phones CDR. SDR, CAI were checked. Statement of CAI persons were recorded. Thus, the accused persons obtained simcards of other persons and used them for bringing the stock of liquor and thereby committed the offence under section 406, 420, 120-B and 34 of L.P.C.
2. Seeking quashment of questioned FIR, learned advocate Mr.Prajapati for the applicants referred to judgment of Hon'ble Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v/s. CBI [2013 (6) SCC 348] would submit that questioned FIR is subsequent FIR and consequent to FIR being C.R.No.III-308 of 2018 registered with Sihor Police Station. He would submit that during investigation of first FIR, the police has seized mobile phones from the custody of the accused, came out with second FIR that accused have documents of other person to obtain Sim card. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that subsequent FIR is part of incident which is recorded in first FIR. Filing of second FIR and proceeding accused to face second trial for the same incident recorded in first FIR is violative of Article 14,20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that applicants cannot be forced to face two trial for same incident which has resulted into two offence. It is submitted that during investigation of first FIR, some material connecting the accused is found then further investigation can be carried, and additional report in form of charge-sheet can be filed, if charge sheet is already filed. Otherwise further details revealed during investigation would form part of charge sheet for first FIR, but registration of second FIR is impermissible. Learned advocate for the applicants after reading FIR, would submit that subsequent FIR is nothing but is in furtherance of first FIR. Therefore, it is submitted that registration of subsequent FIR being questioned FIR is not permissible. Hence, he submitted to quash the questioned FIR.
2.1. Apart from above, it is submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that even as per face of FIR, it emerge that with consent of persons in whose name Sim card stand have been used by the applicants and therefore, offence under sections Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 406, 420, 120B of IPC is failed to attract.
2.2. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to allow the petition and quash questioned FIR.
3. On the other hand, learned APP Mr.Joshi for the respondent - State referring to recent judgment in the case of State of Rajashtan v/s. Surendra Singh Rathore [2025 INSC 248] would submit that first FIR is registered against unknown persons for the commission of offence under section 65(A), 65(E), 81,83, 116-B, 98 of the Prohibition Act on the ground that 7211 bottles of Indian made foreign liqour worth Rs.21,63,300/- was found from the possession of accused. State Monitoring Cell has raided upon getting secret information that Indian made foreign liquor is transported in trailer under lime bags. Having received some information, police has continued following the vehicle in which Indian made foreign liquor was transported and same was intercepted, where it was found that Indian made foreign liqour was being uploaded. Accused Vimal Ghanshaym Maniyar was arrested on the spot for the said offence and multiple phones were recovered from his possession. Learned APP submits that in the investigation it was found that Sim card recovered from the accused are obtained from documents belonging to third party and therefore, second FIR is quite different and distinct. Learned APP further submitted that since scope and ambit of both the FIR are in different perspective, the Court should not quash the questioned FIR on the ground that it is second FIR. In order to attract questioned FIR as second FIR, it has to be established by the petitioner that subsequent FIR is part of incident alleged in the first FIR. If two incidents are separate and distinct but Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined during investigation of first FIR, some material is found, registration of second FIR is permissible.
3.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
4. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused the record. In decision of recent origin, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh Rathore (surpa) addressed the identical question that whether registration of subsequent FIR is legally permissible. After surveying slew of pronouncements including judgment in the case of T.T.Antony v/s. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181] and in the case of Babu Bhai v/s. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254], the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 to 8.6 has held as under :-
"6. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the written submissions filed. The sole question for our consideration is whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
7. We find that a judgment of this court titled T.T. Antony (supra) records the position that a second FIR is not maintainable. The relevant extract is as under :
"27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. This Rule, however, over the years through judicial pronouncements, has lent some flexibility. Reference may be made to:
8.1 In Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.6, this Court dealt with the concept of a second FIR at length. We may reproduce with profit certain observations as under :
"14. On the plain construction of the language and scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the Code, it cannot be construed or suggested that there can be more than one FIR about an occurrence. However, the opening words of Section 154 suggest that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing by the officer- in-charge of a police station. This implies that there has to be the first information report Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined about an incident which constitutes a cognizable offence. The purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will, thus, be appropriate to follow the settled principle that there cannot be two FIRs registered for the same offence. However, where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different, or even where the subsequent crime is of such magnitude that it does not fall within the ambit and scope of the FIR recorded first, then a second FIR could be registered. The most important aspect is to examine the inbuilt safeguards provided by the legislature in the very language of Section 154 of the Code. These safeguards can be safely deduced from the principle akin to double jeopardy, rule of fair investigation and further to prevent abuse of power by the investigating authority of the police. Therefore, second FIR for the same incident cannot be registered. Of course, the investigating agency has no determinative right. It is only a right to investigate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The filing of report upon completion of investigation, either for cancellation or alleging commission of an offence, is a matter which once filed before the court of competent jurisdiction attains a kind of finality as far as police is concerned, may be in a given case, subject to the right of further investigation but wherever the investigation has been completed and a person is found to be prima facie guilty of committing an offence or otherwise, re- examination by the investigating agency on its own should not be permitted merely by registering another FIR with regard to the same offence. If such protection is not given to a suspect, then possibility of abuse of investigating powers by the police cannot be ruled out. It is with this intention in mind that such interpretation should be given to Section 154 of the Code, as it would not only further the object of law but even that of just and fair investigation. More so, in the backdrop of the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, reinvestigation or de novo investigation is beyond the competence of not only the investigating agency but even that of the learned Magistrate. The courts have taken this view primarily for the reason that it would be opposed to the scheme of the Code and more particularly Section 167(2) of the Code.Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined (Ref. Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [(2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] of the same date.)"
(Emphasis supplied) 8.2 In Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi7 this Court held :
"11. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention that once the proceedings initiated under FIR No. 135 ended in a final report the police had no authority to register a second FIR and number it as FIR No. 208. Of course the legal position is that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. Even that apart, the report submitted to the court styling it as FIR No. 208 of 1998 need be considered as an information submitted to the court regarding the new discovery made by the police during investigation that persons not named in FIR No. 135 are the real culprits. To quash the said proceedings merely on the ground that final report had been laid in FIR No. 135 is, to say the least, too technical. The ultimate object of every investigation is to find out whether the offences alleged have been committed and, if so, who have committed it."
(Emphasis supplied) 8.3 The position regarding the second FIR has been clarified by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash [(2004) 13 SCC 292. The relevant discussion made in the judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference :
"21. From the above it is clear that even in regard to a complaint arising out of a complaint on further investigation if it was found that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint then a further investigation under the court culminating in another complaint is permissible.
22. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined SCC (Cri) 479] also shows that even in cases where a prior complaint is already registered, a counter-complaint is permissible but it goes further and holds that even in cases where a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation. Of course, this larger proposition of law laid down in Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is not necessary to be relied on by us in the present case. Suffice it to say that the discussion in Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] is in the same line as found in the judgments in Kari Choudhary [(2002) 1 SCC 714 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 269] and State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 272 : AIR 1980 SC 326] . However, it must be noticed that in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , Ram Lal Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] was noticed but the Court did not express any opinion either way.
23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e. if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.
24. We have already noticed that in T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] this Court did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to file counterclaim, on the contrary from the observations found in the said judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter-complaint is permissible."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 8.4 In Babubhai (supra), it was observed that :
"21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted."
(Emphasis supplied) 8.5 In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441 this Court held, in the following terms that when a new discovery is made, the second FIR would be maintainable. It was said as follows :
"67. The second FIR, in our opinion, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations. Discoveries may be made by the police authorities at a subsequent stage. Discovery about a larger conspiracy can also surface in another proceeding, as for example, in a case of this nature. If the police authorities did not make a fair investigation and left out conspiracy aspect of the matter from the purview of its investigation, in our opinion, as and when the same surfaced, it was open to the State and/or the High Court to direct investigation in respect of an offence which is distinct and separate from the one for which the FIR had already been lodged."
(Emphasis supplied) Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined 8.6 Apart from these judgments, reference can also be made to Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322], Surender Kaushik v/s. State of UP [(2013) 5 SCC 148 and P.Sreekumar v/s. State of Kerala [(2018) 4 SCC 579]."
5. After discussing aforesaid judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court culled out following principles regarding permissibility of registration of second FIR as under :-
"9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR:
9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. 9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. 9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different."
6. Taking into consideration principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, if the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances or investigation and /or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of larger conspiracy or unknown facts are brought to the investigation, and if incident are separate, registration of second FIR is permissible.
Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined
7. Coming back to case on hand, first FIR being C.R.No.III- 308 of 2018 was filed under the provisions of Prohibition Act, whereby, secret information was received that huge quantity of Indian made foreign liquor of 7211 bottles worth Rs.21,63,300/- is being transported under lime bags. State Monitoring Cell having received such secret information followed the vehicle in which Indian made foreign liquor was alleged to have been transported and raided the place where vehicle was stopped. Four persons were searched and multiple mobile phones were found from their possession and later on they were arrested. Investigation in the offence was carried out and during investigation of the offence CDR, SDR, CAF of mobiles, it was found that mobiles which were seized from possession of accused were of different sim card obtained in the name of third party. Therefore, another FIR was registered being C.R.No.I-53 of 2019 with Sihor Police Station for the same incident having different avenue and different ambit and scope of investigation. It was also found that to purchase sim card accused have misused documents of third party. Whether or not that act attracts offence of second FIR, is question of investigation and trial but FIR filed subsequently cannot be treated as second FIR on the ground that it contains allegations for material / information received during investigation of first FIR. In order to prove that impugned FIR is second FIR, the petitioner needs to pass through principle of "test of sameness". Learned advocate for the applicant could not point out any circumstances which link both the FIRs and pass through principle of "test of sameness".
8. It is expected from police authorities to register information Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined of cognizance offence as FIR to start and conclude fair and thorough investigation to find out truth. Police authorities if discover new facts during investigation of first offence, where version of discovered fact is different, during investigation of first offence would establish factual foundation of registration of second FIR.
9. As discussed herein above, during investigation of first FIR, new facts surfaced on record that sim card which are part of mobile phones recovered during investigation of first FIR from the custody of accused were brought by supplying documents of third party. Police authorities having discovered new facts which is not part of allegations levelled in first FIR, registered second FIR which is distinct and separate from first FIR, whereby allegations levelled are in regard to transporting Indian made foreign liquour without license or permit in State of Gujarat. Therefore, during investigation of first FIR, since distinct and separate facts were recovered, it laid to filing of questioned FIR. Therefore, questioned FIR cannot be said to part of first FIR. It is incorrect to say that police since has gathered facts during investigation of first FIR, instead of filing second FIR, police has to investigate distinct and separate facts as part of charge-sheet of FIR. Thus, submission of learned advocate for the applicant is wholly unsustainable and not worthy of acceptance.
10. Insofar so judgment in the case of Amit A Shah (supra) relied by learned advocate Mr.Prajapati for the petitioner is concerned, it was case where Hon'ble Apex Court found that killing of three persons is larger conspiracy alleged in the first FIR. Third person was killed for which subsequent FIR was Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined registered. In such circumstances, Hon'ble Apex Court found that subsequent FIR recording larger conspiracy which is base of first FIR and therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court held that instead of filing second FIR, investigating officer to file supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR. The facts of the that case does not help the petitioner at all. In result thereof, the petition deserves no consideration.
11. Second limb of submission of learned advocate for the applicant that second FIR if taken on its face value, it does not establish offence under section 406 and 420 of IPC. The petition is filed at threshold and grounds stated in the petition mainly questions legality and validity of FIR on the ground that it is second FIR. Going through the FIR what could be noticed that accused were transporting Indian made foreign liqour of huge quantity and were found with multiple mobile phones and sim card which did not belong to them. The question arise whether sim card were belonging to accused or not, whether same has been obtained fraudulently or dishonestly or by cheating the person or not, are questions to be investigated during investigation of offence. At threshold, it cannot he held that accused have not committed any offence to attract section 405 and 415 of IPC, whether it was criminal breach of trust or cheating as accused have got documents of third party and used to obtain sim card. Therefore, merely on the words of applicant that no offence under section 406 and 420 is attracted cannot be believed at this stage.
12. Power of High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide and the very plenitude. The power is required to be Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined exercised with great caution. Though the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, but the expression "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. In the case of of Arun Shankar Shukla v State of UP [AIR 1999 SC 2554], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :-
"It is true that under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice . But the expressions "abuse of the process of law" or to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and nott otherwise. Further, inherent powers are in the nature of extraordinary powers to be used sparingly for achieving the object mentioned in section 482 of the Code in cases where there is no express provision empowering the High Court to achieve the said object. It is well neigh settled that inherent power is not to be invoked in respect of any matter covered by specific provisions of the Code or if its exercise would infringe any specific provision of the Code."
13. In State of Punjab v Kasturi Lal [AIR 2008 SC 3077], the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"Section 482 Exercise of power under section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of he Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, () to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (ii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary tor proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice. While exercising powers under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist."
14. The powers possessed by the High Court under section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise, Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the without court and sufficient the issues material, involved, of whether course, no factual or legal, are of Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14183/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2025 undefined magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective Court will exercise its hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See : Minu Kumari v/s. State of Bihar - AIR 2006 SC 1937].
15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Mon Apr 28 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 28 23:08:33 IST 2025