K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. versus SIDDALINGESH

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 03-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 783 
' 
~ 't 
K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. 
A 
; 
II. 
SIDDALi NG ESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2008) 
MARCH 3, 2008 
B . 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
"',.,,_ 
" 
Code of criminal Procedure, 1973: · 
s. 482 - Complaint for offences under /PC - Initiation of c 
criminal proceedings - Application for quashing the 
proceedings and complaint -Dismissed by High Court - On 
appeal held: Complaint was an abuse of process of law - In 
the facts of the case, accusations in the complaint are not 
made out - Proceedings quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 
403, 405 and 415 rlw s. 34 . 
D 
• ""( 
s. 482 - Inherent powers under - Nature and scope of -
Held: Exercise of such power in cases of quashing of 
proceedings is the exception and not the rule- It is, though 
wide, has to be exercised sparingly in order to do substantial E 
justice - It should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate 
prosecution- While exercising svch powers courts not to 
function as court of appeal or revision. 
~'~ 
. " 
Respondent was appointed as a peon with the 
appellant-society. He filed a petition in terms of s. 33 (C) 
F 
(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that lesser 
amounts were paid to him and his signatures were taken 
for higher amounts. After his retirement he filed a complaint 
against the society and its Principal and Secretary 
alleging· commission of offence punishable u/ss. 403, 405 G 
and 415 r/w s. 34 IPC. He stated in the complaint that he 
was given to understand by the appellants that certain 
amounts were being deducted for repayment at the time 
of retirement. Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and 
783 
H 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A issued pr.ocess. Appellants filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 
f • 
for quashing the proceedings and the complaint. High 
~ 
Court dismissed the application. Hence the present 
appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The complaint was nothing but an abuse 
of the process of law. High Court came to the conclusion 
( 
.,;-" 
that deductions were made without any rhyme and reason 
,; 
and without any basis. That was not the case of the 
c complainant. On the other hand, it tried to make out a case 
that the deduction was made with an object. That 
obviously, was the foundation to substantiate claim of 
entrustment. On a close reading of the ·complaint it is clear 
that the ingredients of Sections 403, 405 and 415 do not 
D exist. The statement made in the complaint runs contrary 
to the averments made in the petition in terms of Section 
) 
',. 
33-(C) (2). [Paras 7 and 12) [795-C, D; 790-A, BJ 
2.1 Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in a 
case of the nature where quashing of criminal proceeding 
E is sought, is the exception and not the rule. The Section 
does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It 
only saves the intierent power which the Court possessed 
before the enactment of the Cr.P.C. It envisages three 
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction 
., 
, .. 
F may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order 
under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of 
court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 
-
[Para 8] [790-C, D] 
2.2 It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down 
G any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of 
, 
inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing 
with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly 
arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from 
-t- -
express provisions of law which are necessary for proper 
H discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them 
K.L.E. SOCEITY AND ORS. v. SIDDALINGESH 
785' 
" t 
j. 
by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the A 
section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent 
powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or 
criminal possess, in the absence of any express 
provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers 
as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in B 
" 
course of administration of justice on the principle 
·"';... 
"quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id 
' 
sine quo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law gives a 
person anything it gives him that without which it cannot 
exist). [Para 8) [790·0, E, F, G] 
c 
2.3 While exercising powers under the Section, the 
court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. 
Inherent jurisdiction under the Section though wide, has 
to 

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