S.N. Sharma vs Rajesh Wadhwani on 27 September, 2019

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

S.N. Sharma vs Rajesh Wadhwani on 27 September, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1228

Bench: Mohd. Fahim Anwar

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR


        Misc. Criminal Case No.13174 of 2013

                       S.N. Sharma
                           Vs.
              Rajesh Wadhwani and another



Shri H.S. Dubey with Shri Sanjeev Tuli, learned counsel
for petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Sharma, learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
Shri Veer Bahadur, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.


                       ORDER

(27.09.2019) Per Mohd. Fahim Anwar, J :

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC framed in the Sessions Trial No.885/2014 based on complaint case.

2. The submissions made on behalf of applicants are that the respondent Rajesh Wadhwani is claiming that he has purchased the land Khasra No.103/11/4/2 and 111/11 area admeasuring 0.25 acres and Khasra No.103/11/4/4 and 111/11 admeasuring area 0.25 acres of village Chuna Bhatti, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.2007 from Shri Kripal

-2 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

Singh Bedi and Smt. Sangeeta Puri. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the lands bearing Khasra No.103/11 and Khasra No.111/11/1/1/1-A total area admeasuring 0.50 acre was belonging to late Asharani Sharma, was given to him by way of Will dated 2.1.2005, which was originally purchased by Asharani from Shanti Devi through a sale deed. It is also alleged by the applicants that Asharani Sharma has executed a Will dated 2.1.2005 in presence of witnesses by which she has bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties to Shyamnath Sharma, applicant No.2, who is her nephew also. It is also submitted that Asharani Sharma @ Santosh Sharma was having no issue so she had also adopted Shyamnath Sharma in the year 1969, when he was six months old by solemnizing Hindu rites and rituals, since then Shyamnath Sharma has become the son of Smt. Asharani Sharma and her husband Vidhyaratan Sharma and residing with them. It is also alleged that on the basis of said Will dated 2.1.2005 and adoption in the year 1969 Shyamnath Sharma has bequeathed all the movable and immovable property of Late Smt. Asharani who died on 6.2.2005. It is also alleged that respondent has filed a baseless complaint case before CJM Bhopal showing the said Will dated 2.1.2005 to be false and fabricated, in which after recording preliminary evidence u/s 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., the said Court has passed the order dated 25.6.2012 to register a criminal case against applicants under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The applicants have filed a revision against the said order of

-3 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

CJM, which was also dismissed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No.830/2012 vide order dated 01.8.2013. Aggrieved by the said orders, applicants have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings in the said trial and also order dated 21.04.2017 by which the Court below has fixed the charges of above said offences.

3. It is also submitted on behalf of applicant No.2 Shyamnath Sharma that he filed an application under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1972 for issuance of Succession Certificate regarding property left by Late Smt.Asharani Sharma. The respondent also filed objection inter alia alleging that the said Will and adoption pleadings are baseless, based on wrong statements and forged documents. The learned trial Court in M.J.C. No.73/2009 vide order dated 9.4.2010 dismissed the application. The applicant No.2 filed an appeal No.58/2010, which was partly allowed vide order dated 10.09.2010 and case was remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. After the remand, the matter was reconsidered by the trial Court again and the application was dismissed in the same MJC No.73/2009 vide order dated 29.06.2011. The applicant No.1 again filed an appeal No.126/2011 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal vide order dated 7.7.2014 and in compliance of that order, a succession certificate was issued in the same MJC i.e. No.73/2009 on 03.09.2014 in favour of applicant

-4 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

No.2 for the money of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, which was deposited in Punjab & Sindh Bank, Branch Shahpura, Bhopal.

4. It is submitted by the applicant No.2 that the alleged adoption and also Will were not only considered, but also relied by the said Court and passed the order of succession in his favour and on that basis applicant has not only obtained the succession certificate and received the money of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, which was deposited in the Bank. So at this stage, treating the said Will to be false and fabricated is not in accordance with law and is not sustainable, so the said order of CJM dated 25.6.2012 & also the order of Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 1.8.2013, by which a criminal case in abovementioned crimes is registered against applicants & on that basis charges are also fixed against them, deserve to be set aside. It is also prayed on behalf of applicant Nos.1, 3 and 4 that whatever is the dispute, it is between Shyamnath Sharma and respondent. Applicant no.1 S.N.Sharma is the father and 82 years old aged person and Yashwant Pandit and Hemant Kumar Soodan are the brother-in-laws (Behnoi) of Shyamnath Sharma and there are no specific allegations against them regarding any cheating or forgery by concocting the fake documents, so the impugned orders by which Courts below have passed the order of taking the cognizance are also not according to law and are not maintainable and deserves to be set aside.

-5 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

5. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that he has purchased the lands bearing Khasra No.103/11/4/2 and 111/11 admeasuring area 0.25 and Khasra No.103/11/4/4 and 111/11 admeasuring area 0.25 acres total 0.50 acres in village Chuna Bhatti, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal for the consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 7.2.2007 and he is also in possession of the said land. Shyamnath Sharma in collusion with other applicants has obtained the Succession Certificate regarding some money deposited in some bank, which was issued to him on the basis of false plea of alleged "adoption" in the year 1969 and also forged and concocted "Will". Applicant No.2 was never adopted by Late Smt. Asharani Sharma and her husband Vidhyaratan Sharma, because before the initiation of the proceeding of succession certificate, applicant has never taken these pleas before any of the authority and he was always using the name of his original father Shri S.N. Sharma as his father even in his educational record also. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent that the idea of Will, allegedly executed by Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, in his favour is afterthought, because when the application for obtaining the succession certificate was filed by the applicant, he neither pleaded nor produced any "Will" which was said to be executed by Late Smt. Asharani in his favour. It is also submitted that Late Asharani Sharma has died on 06.02.2005, at that time no "Will" was in existence. When applicant has lost the case which was filed before CJM Court, Bhopal for obtaining succession certificate on the basis of adoption,

-6 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

but the said adoption was not supported by any documentary or logical proof, then on the later stage applicant No.2 has concocted the said Will dated 02.01.2005 and used it in the said succession proceedings.

6. It is also submitted that respondent was having the information and knowledge that applicant No.2 is a very cunning person and in future he may use the certificate in other civil proceedings which are going on between him and applicants. So respondent has also entered in the said proceedings of the succession certificate and raised the objection in regard of the issuance of succession certificate in favour of applicant No.2 regarding the properties of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma. A long litigation has taken place in between applicant No.2 and respondent. At last this Court in Criminal Revision No.317/2014 has passed the order dated 23.07.2014, limiting the order of 2nd ASJ, dated 7.7.2014 for issuance of Succession Certificate only for the money of the Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, which was deposited in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Branch Shahpura, Bhopal with a specific observation that if applicant No.2 claims any right on any property of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma on the basis of said "adoption" and "Will" in any forum then the same shall be decided on the basis of assertions, averments and evidence brought on record in accordance with law and the Court below shall not in any manner be influenced by the issuance of succession

-7 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

certificate, which is in favour of applicant No.2 Shyamnath Sharma.

7. It is also submitted that the lands bearing Khasra No.103/11/4/2 and Khasra No.111/11 admeasuring area 0.25 hectare situated at village Chuna Bhatti, Tehsil Huzur, Bhopal belongs to respondent which he purchased with Kripal Singh and others from its original owner Bhagwan Prasad Nema S/o Trilok Chand Nema, resident of Amarwada, District Chhindwara vide registered sale deed dated 17.03.1992 and since then respondent is in its possession and his name is also entered in revenue records in the year 1995. It is also alleged that in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority, in revenue case No.3/A-3/2006-07 on 13.11.2006 when demarcation proceedings were going on, then on 19.11.2006 applicant No.2, Shyamnath Sharma and others have intervened and created scene and also started to beat the labourers and respondent's representative. Report in this regard was lodged against applicant No.2 Shyamnath Sharma and others. It is also alleged that later on respondent has purchased the said land from co-owner Kripal Singh and Smt. Sangita Puri vide sale deed dated 7.2.2007 and has become absolute owner. It is also submitted that Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, her husband Vidhyaratan Sharma has also purchased the adjoining land of Khasra No.103/11 and 111/11, admeasuring 1.00 acre out of the total land, vide sale deed dated 20.9.1966, which was far from the land

-8 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

of defendant. It is also alleged that after the death of Vidhyaratan Sharma, Late Smt. Asharani Sharma herself has sold or transferred the land of her ownership to other persons, but after the death of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, applicant No.2 Shyamnath Sharma who is the nephew of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma and Vidhyaratan Sharma has started to claim rights on the land belonging to respondent on some or other pretext and in that effort he has made the false averment of adoption, execution of Will and using them in different civil litigations going on between him and respondent, while the handwriting expert Shri R.C.Sharma, retired Additional State Examiner in his report dated 9.3.2012 has already opined that on the Will dated 2.1.2005 which is shown to be of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, is not executed by her after matching the signature on the said Will, with her admitted signature.

8. The significant question which arises for the Court's consideration is as to whether the Courts below erred in registering the crime and fixing the charge in above mentioned Sections of Indian Penal Code against the applicants ?

9. The applicants have filed this petition on the ground that respondent is alleging that he is owner of Khasra no.103/11/4/2 and 111/11 area 0.25 acres and Khasra No.103/11/4/4 and 11/11 area 0.25 acre, total area 0.50 acre situated at village Chuna Bhatti Tehsil

-9 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

Huzur, District Bhopal. It is submitted that the mother of applicant no.2 Late Smt.Asharani Sharma alias Santosh Sharma was the owner of khasra no.103/11 and khasra no.111/11/1/1/1-A area 0.50 acre, which is completely a different land and it has no connection with the property of the respondent. Late Smt.Asharani Sharma was close relative (Aunt) of applicant no.2 Shyam Nath Sharma and she had no issue, so she adopted Shyam Nath Sharma from his childhood and out of love and affection had executed a Will dated 02.01.2005 and by which she had bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties to her adopted son i.e. Shyamnath Sharma, who was also her nephew. Shyamnath Sharma had filed a case for obtaining succession certificate for obtaining the amount deposited by Late Smt. Asharani Sharma in the Bank, in which the family members of Late Smt.Asharani Sharma have filed affidavits in favour of applicant no.2. Two suits are pending; one filed by Shyamnath Sharma against Kripal Singh Bedi, Smt. Sangita Puri and other for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendants therein, shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of plaintiff Shyamnath Sharma and the other suit was filed by Kripal Singh Bedi against Shyamnath Sharma and others claiming permanent injunction that the defendants mentioned therein shall not interfere in the peaceful possession of their land. The Board of Revenue has decided the matter of demarcation vide order dated 22.12.2011 in favour of Shyamnath Sharma regarding Khasra No.103/11 and 111/11/1/1/1-A, area 0.50 acre of village Chuna Bhatti,

- 10 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

Patwari Halka No.40, Tehsil Huzur District Bhopal. Shyamnath Sharma has no connection with the land of complainant (respondent). Applicant no.2 Shyam Nath Sharma has become the owner of the property of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma by way of Will dated 02.01.2005. There is no material on record that any document was forged to get any benefit from it. Shyamnath Sharma has obtained the property of Smt. Asharani Sharma by virtue of the "Will" executed by Smt. Asharani Sharma. The complainant filed the false report of handwriting expert on the basis of photocopies of the documents, which are not admissible in evidence. It is submitted that it is purely a civil dispute, but complainant (respondent) has filed the complaint case only to influence the applicants to enter into compromise. In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal, in Criminal Case No.4687/2012 be quashed.

10. It is well established principle of law that the proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that some elements of civil law or litigation is involved. In the present case, it cannot be said that it is a case of purely civil nature. The allegations are that the applicant No.2 with the support of other applicants has concocted a forged Will, in the name of Late Smt. Asharani Sharma, in his name to claim her property and also used that "Will" in some proceedings which are of civil nature and decided by the civil Court and also trying to use the

- 11 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

same "Will" in other civil litigations which are going on in different civil Courts.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in [(2012) 9 SCC 460] has fixed the matrix for quashing the grounds in the petition which is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. as under :

"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 loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.

- 12 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

27.5 Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.

27.6 The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.

27.7 The process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.

27.8 Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a civil wrong with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.

27.9 Another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court leading to injustice.

27.10 It is neither necessary nor is the Court called upon to hold a fullfledged 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

- 13 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

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 with 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 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.

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 appears to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."

12. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others reported in [(2006) 6 SCC 736] has held as under :-

- 14 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. The principles, relevant to our purpose are :

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) 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. As the

- 15 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

13. Thus, it is clear that where the complaint discloses the criminal ingredients also, then the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed only because of the fact that civil dispute is also involved. Only a case which is predominantly of civil in nature cannot be allowed to be given the colour of criminal case.

14. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta, [(2009) 1 SCC 516] in paras 15-16, this Court, interpreting the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, has laid down the law as under: (SCC p. 523) "15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR

- 16 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.

16. It is furthermore well known that no hardand-fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. 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."

15. On the other hand applicant has said to believe on the judgment of Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in [(2006) 6 SCC 736] :

"12....

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.

Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

- 17 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

          (iii) The     power to quash shall not,
          however,     be used to stifle or scuttle a

legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

16. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy & another Vs. Sudha Seetharam & another (Criminal Appeal No.238/2019) vide judgment dated 15.2.2019 held thus :-

"The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. The

- 18 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code."

17. So far as malafides of complainant is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case Renu Kumari Vs. Sanjay Kumar reported in [(2008) 12 SCC 346] has held as under:

"8. Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the 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 Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,

(i) to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) 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. The courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for 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 the course of administration of justice on the principle of "quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest" (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist).

While exercising the powers under the section,

- 19 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction 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 the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

18. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, I am of the view that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders in accordance with law. I am also not impressed by the argument that as the civil litigation is going on between the parties, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different Court even though higher in status and

- 20 -

M.Cr.C.No.13174/2013

authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.

19. So in the case in hand, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for quashing the FIR or the charge or criminal case pending against the applicant.

20. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge M Digitally signed by SANTOSH P MATHEWS Date: 2019.09.30 10:50:53 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court