CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 31-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
801
CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1082 of 2019)
JULY 31, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Jurisdiction of
High Court – Scope of – Appellants and the Respondent No.2-de
facto complainant are apparently close relatives and embroiled in a
partition suit filed by the Appellant No.2 – Appellant No.2 also filed
criminal complaint against the de facto complainant – Criminal
proceedings being PRC No.2 of 2018 filed against the appellants
u/ss.307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) r/w s.34, IPC – As per the
appellants, the respondent no.2 falsely implicated them as counter
blast to the criminal complaint filed by the Appellant No.2 – Petition
u/s.482 filed by the appellants for quashing the proceedings in PRC
No.2 of 2018 – Dismissed – On appeal, held: Plenary inherent
jurisdiction of the Court u/s.482 of CrPC may be exercised to give
effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process
of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice – However,
while exercising such powers, the High Court does not function as
a Court of appeal or revision – Power u/s.482 should not be
exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution – At the same time, if the
basic ingredients of the offence alleged are altogether absent, the
criminal proceedings may be quashed u/s.482 – Power to quash
the proceedings is generally exercised when there is no material to
proceed against the Petitioners even if the allegations in the
complaint are prima facie accepted as true – In the instant case, the
High Court rightly found that the allegations in the complaint
coupled with the statements recorded by the Magistrate had the
necessary ingredients of offences u/ss.307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2)
r/w s.34, IPC– High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal
complaint, observing that it can exercise power u/s.482 only in rare
cases – Not fit case to quash the criminal proceedings – Penal Code,
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 801
801
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
1860 – ss.307, 323, 427, 447, 506(2) r/w s.34 and ss.120B, 420,
463, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The High Court concluded, and rightly, that it
was open to the Appellants to adduce evidence to show that the
Appellants and/or one of the them was not present at the time of
the alleged offence. The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court
under Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised to give  effect to an
order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process of the
Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Paras 11, 12]
[806-D-E]
1.2 The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive,
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, that is, to make orders as may be necessary
to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse
of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of
justice. For interference under Section 482, three conditions are
to be fulfilled. The injustice which comes to light should be of a
grave, and not of a trivial character; it should be palpable and
clear and not doubtful and there should exist no other provision
of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief. In
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible
for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to
be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the
Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it
cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The
High Court should not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
482, embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable
or not, or whether on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence
the allegations are not sustainable, for this is the function of the
trial Judge. [Paras 13-16] [806-E-H; 807-A-B]
1.3  The High Court may have an obligation to intervene
under Section 482 of the Code in cases where manifest error has
been committed by the Magistrate in issuing process despite
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
the fact that the alleged acts did not at all constitute offences.
However, while exercising powers u

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.