AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 3190 of 2004 relates to FIR No. 43 dated 16.9.2000 where charge sheet had already been filed. The High Court in each case exercised power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). In the FIR No. 61 of 2000 accusations were against respondents Saroj Kumar Sahoo and Nalinikanta Muduli. 3. Background facts giving rise to the three appeals in a nutshell are as follows: On 8.1.1997 a trust named Nabaprabhat Trust was registered in which respondent Saroj Kumar Sahoo was the Chairman cum Managing Trustee. It appears that a registered sale deed No. 386 dated 4.3.1997 was registered before Sub Registrar, Pipli in respect of about 10 acres of land. According to the prosecution on 14.1.1997 the respondent Saroj Kumar Sahoo in the capacity of Chairman cum Managing Trustee of Nabaprabhat Trust applied for establishment of a new polytechnic with approval of All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'AICTE'), though the trust was not having the requisite land of 20 acres and funds to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs as the trust was registered with a corpus of a paltry sum i.e. Rs. 10,000/-. Xerox copy of the sale deed according ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded during investigation it was clear that the ingredients of the offences alleged were not in existence, and it would be an abuse of the process of Court and may lead to gross miscarriage of justice if the proceedings are continued. Therefore, so far as the respondent Saroj Kumar Sahoo is concerned the proceedings were quashed. 5. In the appeal relatable to SLP (Crl.) No. 3190 of 2004, before the High Court, respondent Nalinikanta Muduli had questioned legality of the proceedings relating to Bhubneshwar Vigilance Police Station Case No. 43 of 2000. In the said allegations which were against respondent Nalinikanta and his father Muduli (in short 'Bichitrananda') Bhubneshwar Vigilance PS case No. 25 of 2000 was registered against Bichitrananda on the allegation that he had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. During investigation business premises of Nalinikanta were searched and incriminating materials/documents were seized for which FIR No. 43 of 2000 was lodged against Nalinikanta and Bichitrananda. In the appeal relatable to SLP (Crl.) 3199 of 2004, the challenge . before the High Court was to the FIR 61 of 2000. In these cases, learned Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with a view to unleash political vendetta the respondents and Bichitrananda are being victimized. Continuance of proceedings against them would be sheer abuse of the process of court. The High Court has analysed the factual position keeping in view the principles relating to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, no interference is called for. It is pointed out that though Bichitrananda Muduli was not a party, the High Court on going through the entire records came to hold that an innocent person like Bichitrananda should not be penalized and, therefore, quashed the proceedings so far as he is concerned. Without making him a party in these proceedings the appellants cannot take away the relief granted to him by learned Single Judge. 8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the 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 the Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. In dealing with the last category, 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 Cr.P.C., 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Cr.P.C. or 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." 11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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 Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the FIR are correct and constitute an offence so as to remove the legal bar to institute proceedings in Court, the Court cannot at that stage appraise the evidence collected by the Police in their investigation. Any petition under Section 561-A at such a stage is, therefore, premature and incompetent." 14. It is to be noted mplete and at that stage it was impermissible for the High Court to look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial Court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate material and documents on records but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. In Chand Dhawan (Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. 1992CriLJ1956, it was observed that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be proved, no inference ....