LexBAIJNATH JHA versus SITA RAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 9 S.C.R. 1134 .. A BAIJNATH JHA v SITA RAM AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2000) B JUNE 12, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ., Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Exercise of power under - Scope of - Discussed - Raid conducted in c premises of Respondent No. 1 by officers of the State E/ec- tricity Board - Allegation that he committed theft of electricity - Appellants were members of the raiding party - Respon- dent No.1 though arrested on basis of the FIR lodged with the police officials, subsequently released on bail - Thereafter, D Respondent No. 1 filed complaint before the Magistrate a/leg- ..,. ing that the three Appellants and one 'R', then functioning as Executive Engineer in the Electricity Board, had demanded illegal gratification - Proceedings instituted on the said com- plaint - Appellants filed petition u/s. 482 - Dismissal of, by E High Court - On appeal, held: The proceedings instituted were malafide, based on vague assertions and were initiated with malafide intents - It constituted sheer abuse of the process of law - No reason was shown before the High Court as to why the complainant-Respondent No. 1 chose not to proceed .... against one of the four accused persons initially named viz R' ~ F - Proceedings against the Appellants directed to be quashed. A raid was conducted in the premises of Respon- dent No.1 by four officers of the Bihar State Electricity Board on the allegation that he had committed theft of G electricity attracting penal consequences under s.379 IPC and ss.39.and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Appel- lants were members of the raiding party. Respondent No.1 ~ was arrested on basis of the FIR lodged with the police officials, but subsequently released on bail. Thereafter, H 1134 BAIJNATH JHA v SITA RAM AND 1135 ANR. + Respondent No.1 filed complaint before the Magistrate A alleging that the three Appellants and one 'R', then func- tioning as Executive Engineer in the Electricity Board, had demanded illegal gratification. The date of the demand was not indicated in the complaint. When the Magistrate (Trial Court) took cognizance, Appellants filed petition B before the High Court under s.482 CrPC contending that '( the complaint was a counter blast by Respondent No.1 to the action taken against him. The petition was dis- missed by the High Court. Meanwhile, the said 'R' had filed a petition for quash- _ c ing the prosecution against him. The same was dismissed by the High Court while the petition filed by the Appel- lants was pending. 'R' moved this Court, before which, a statement was made by Respondent No.1 that he did not want to proceed against 'R' but wanted to continue the D " proceedings as regards the others. Consequently the pro- ceedings were quashed qua 'R'. The contention raised by the Appellants before this Court is that the proceedings against them was a sheer E abuse of the process of the Court; that they and the said 'R' stood on a similar footing and that Respondent No.1 had lodged the complaint with a view to harass the Ap- pellants for taking action against him. ). Allowing the appeals and quashing the proceedings ' F against the Appellants, the Court HELD:1.1. Exercise of power under s. 482 CrPC 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 G possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envis- ages three circumstances under which the inherent ju- "l risdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the pro- cess of the Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 9 S.C.R. A 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 possi- bly arise. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers B apart from express provisions of law which are neces- sary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds ex- pression in the section which merely recognises and pre- serves inherent powers of the High Courts. All Courts, c whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.