Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)State Of Karnataka vs Pratap Chand & Ors on 11 March, 1981
No
doubt the grounds mentioned above are purely illustrative and it
provides only guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High
court can quash the proceedings. Though arguments was advanced based
on the decision in State of Karnataka Vs. Pratap Chand and Others,
1981 2 SCC 335, it was decided in a case relating conviction under
Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and not quashing of a complaint based
merely on a petition or an affidavit. Hence, the said decision is not
applicable t the case on hand.
R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
In R.P. Kapur
v. State of Punjab 1
this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power
can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (AIR para 6)
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
8.
In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where
there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When 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. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression,
or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in
exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time
the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The
scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the
categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under
it relating to
cognizable
offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice were set out in some
detail by this Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal 2.
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
[See Janata
Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary 3
and Raghubir Saran (Dr.)
v. State of Bihar 4.]
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. In a proceeding instituted on
complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings
is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
Dr. Raghubir Sharan vs The State Of Bihar on 14 March, 1963
[See Janata
Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary 3
and Raghubir Saran (Dr.)
v. State of Bihar 4.]
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. In a proceeding instituted on
complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings
is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose
any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.