LexM/S. EICHER TRACTOR LTD. AND ORS. versus HARIHAR SINGH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 7 MIS. EICHER TRACTOR LTD. AND ORS. A v. HARIHAR SINGH AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2008) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 B "'· [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of proceedings - /Qherent powers of High Court- Scope of- Discussed - On facts, proceedings were initiated by c Respondent No.1 as·a counterb/ast to the proceedings initiated by Appellants - Continuance of proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law - Hence quashed. D A complaint was filed by Respondent No.1 under ss.420, 468 and 471 IPC. The Magistrate issued summons. The accused-Appellants filed petition under s.482 CrPC praying for quashing of the proceedings. The petition was dismissed by the High Court. E In appeal before this Court, its was contended that proceedings were initiated by Respondent No.1 as a counter-blast to the earlier proceedings initiated by Appellants against Respondent ·No.1 in form of a complaint under ss.138/442 r/w s.141 of the Negotiable F Instruments Act, 1881 and hence continuance of the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 will amount to an abuse of the process of law. Allowing the appeal, the Court G ~ HELD: 1.1. s.482 CrPC does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment 7 H 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction 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. It is neither possible nor desirable to B lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases th~t may. possibly arise. Courts, ·therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are C necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Cour;ts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the a~sence 0 of any express provision, as inherent in their const~ution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid a/icui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (when ' the law gives a person anything it gives him that without E which it cannot exist). ,[Para 10] [14-E, F, G, H; 15-A-B] 1.2. While exercising powers under s.482 CrPC, the Court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has F 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. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. G Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, H EICHER TRACTOR LTD. AND ORS. v. HARi HAR 9 SINGH AND ANR. court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it A finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought B to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. [Para 1 O] [19-0] 1.3. When exercising jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC, 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, no doubt, sho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.