M/S ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. AND ORS. versus MD. SHARAFUL HAQUE AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 01-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS ZAN DU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
MD. SHARAFUL HAQUE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 1, 2004 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 482-Quashing of proceedings in a complaint case-Held, if the 
C complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or 
oppressive, inherent power to quash the proceedings can be exercised-On 
facts, complainant did not approach the court with clean hands, and complaint 
being an abuse of process of law, proceedings are quashed 
s. 468(2)(c)-Cognizance of offence-Period of limitation-Complaint 
D filed in 2002 alleging offence to have been committed in 1995-Magistrate 
issuing process in respect of offence uls 4181PC-Held, court could not have 
taken cognizance of the offence, as limitation in such case is 3 years-Penal 
Code, 1860-s. 418-Limitation to file complaint. 
Respondent No. I filed a complaint against the appellants on 9.8.2002 
E alleging that the latter interviewed him for the post of Area M.anager as per 
their advertisement, but gave him appointment as Field Officer w.e.f. 9.9.1995, 
and inspite of their assurance they did not appoint him as Area Manager; 
and, as such, the appellants committed offences under ss. 406 and 409 IPC. 
The Magistrate opined that there existed material to proceed against the 
F appellants under s.418 IPC, and accordingly issued summons for their 
presence. The appellants filed a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the High 
Court contending, inter a/ia, that the complaint was barred by limitation; that 
no case was made out against them; that the complainant did not approach the 
court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. The High Court 
dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, the company filed the appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under 
s.418 IPC. The punishment provided for the said offence is imprisonment for 
three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C. 
If 
790 
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. v. MD. SHARAFUL HAQUE 
791 
being 3 years, the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. There A 
was no explanation whatsoever for the inaction between 1995 and 2001. The 
-order of the Magistrate does not even refer to either s.468 or s.473 of the 
Code. The High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit 
by limitation. (799-B-C, C-D] 
2. Jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be exercised (i) to give effect to an B 
order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to 
otherwise secure the ends of justice. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, 
exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only if 
the complaint does not disclose any offence or if it is frivolous, vexatious or 
oppressive. The factual position in the instant case clearly shows that the C 
complainant did not come to the court with clean hands and the complaint was 
nothing but a sheer abuse of the prQcess of law. This is a case where the 
power under s.482 should have been exercised. The High Court unfortunately 
did not take note of the guiding principles as laid down in Bhajan Lal's* case 
thereby rendering the judgment indefensible. The judgment of the High Court 
is set aside and the proceedings initiated by the complaint lodged are quashed. D 
(796-B-C, 797-G-H; 799-D-E) 
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Suppl. (1) 335 and R.P. Kapur v. 
State of Punjab, AIR (1960) SC 866, relied on. 
Janata Dal v. HS. Chowdhary, (1992] 4 SCC 305; Raghubir Saran (Dr.) E 
v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC 1; Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, 
(1990] Supp. SCC 686; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR (1996) SC 309; 
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995] 6 SCC 194; State of A.era/a 
v. O.C. Kuttan, AIR (1999) SC 1044; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, (1996) 7 
SCC 705; Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397; 
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR (1996) SC 2983 and F 
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCTof Delhi, (1999] 3 SCC 259 and State of Karnataka 
v. M Devendrappa and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 89, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1241 
of2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.2003 of the Patna High Court 
in Crl.M. Nos. 32354 of2002. 
R.F. Nariman, Manish Mohan, Gautam Godara, Dhirender Kumar and 
G 
Ugra Shankar Pd. with him for the Appellants. 
H 
792 
SUPREME COURT 

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