HAZARI LAL GUPTA versus RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 02-12-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

666 
HAZARI LAL GUPTA 
v. 
RAMESHWAR PRASHAD & ANR. 
December 2, 1971 
(A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898), ss. 496, 497, 498 and 561A 
-Powers of Hiph Court under. 
Tae appellant was living and doing business in the United Kingdom. 
He was arrested for offences under ss. 406 and 420 l.P .C., when he came 
to India, on information given by the complainants. Pencling investiga-
tion, he applied for bail and the court ordered that he may be released on 
bail on bis furnishing personal bonds and sureties. He then apphed to 
the High Court for modification of the order, undertaking not to leave 
India and to surrender his passport, and the High Court reduced the 
amount of the personal bonds and of the sureties. Thereafter, the com-
plainants applied to the High Court under ss. 498 and 561A, Cr.. P.C., 
praying that the appellant should be directed to surrender bis passport 
before enlarging him on bail and the High Court passed orders accordingly. 
The appellant surrendered his passport and was released on bail. He then 
applied under s. 561A to the High Court praying : ( 1) that the proceed-
ings based upon the First Information Report lodged by the complainants 
be quashed, (2) that the order of the High Court directing the appellant 
to surrender the passport be modified and the appellant's passport be re-
leased, and (3) that the restrictions imposed on him not to lea\'e India 
may be cancelled. The High Court dismissed the application, 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : 
(1) In exercising the inherent jurisdiction, under s. 561A. 
the High Court can quash proceeclings if there is no legal evidence or if 
there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings: 
but the High Court may not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence 
is reliable or not. 
Where again, iffvestigation into the circumstances of an 
alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Code 
the High Court should not interfere with such investigation, because, it 
would then be impeding investigation and the jurisdiction of statutory 
authorities exercising power in accordance \vith the provisions of the 
Code. [670 C-E] 
R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388 and State of 
West Bengal v. S. N. Basak [.1963] 2 S.C.R. 53, referred to. 
(2) Sections 496. 497 and 498, Cr .. P.C., are not exhaustive of the 
powers of the court in regard to terms and conditions of bilil particularly 
when the High Court was dealing with the cases of this type under s. 
561A, and the apprehension of the appellant jumping bail could not be 
brushed aside. [669 H; 670 Al 
(3) When the High Court passed orders reducing the sureties and 
thereafter passed an order d_irectir;ig the appelfant to surrender his pass-
port and the appellant comphed with the orders and was released on bail. 
the. ~ppellant could not again come up under s. 56 l A for modifying ancl 
I'Ov1S10g the orders passed by the High Court, [669 F-G] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
H. L. GUPTA V. RAMESHWAR (Ray, J.) 
667 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 
110 to 113 of 1971. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 22, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. 
Petiticms Nos. 2675 to 2678 of 1970. 
B 
G. N. Dikshit and S. K. Bisaria, for the appeJlant (in all the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
appeals). 
R. Hana, for respondent No. 1 (in all the appeals). 
0. P. ??.ana, for respondent No. 2 (in all the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ray, J. 
These four appeals are by special leave against the 
order dated 22 March, 1971 of the High Court at Allahabad 
dismissing the applications of the appellant under section 561-A 
of the Criminal ProCP.dure Code for quashing the proceedings 
based upon first information report lodged against the appellant by 
the four respondents. 
The appellant has been living and doing business in the Unit-
ed Kingdom since the year 1963. 
The appellant is one of the 
Directors of M/s H. Gupta (London) Limited and Oriental Wool 
Crafts Limited carrying on business in England. 
The company 
is dealing in the business of carpets imported from India. 
Sometime in the month of June, 1970 four complaints were 
lodged against the appellant. 
The complainants are residents of 
Bhadohi in the District of Varanasi. 
The complainants are 
manufacturers of carpets. 
The complainants came in 
contact 
with the appellant in the yea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.