LexM. VISWANATHAN versus M/S. S.K. TILES & POTTERIES P. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
+
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 583
M. VISWANATHAN
v.
M/S. S.K. TILES & POTTERIES P. LTD. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1869 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 25, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Quashing
A
of criminal proceedings - Power of High Court - Scope of -
C
Explained -
On facts, accused tried for commission of
offences punishable uls. 379, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) !PC
- Application uls. 482 - Allowed by High Court holding that
grievance, if any, to be redressed through civil forum -
Interference with - Held: Complaint clearly shows that the
a/legations were substantially made out - High Court erred D
in holding that the matter in issue was to be decided by a civil
forum - Thus, case not made out for High Court to exercise
jurisdiction u/s. 482 - Order of High Court set aside.
Respondent company-owner of certain property E ·
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
appellant-complainant for development of the said land.
Appellant filed criminal complaint against the
respondents alleging theft of document, forgery of
certain records and criminal intimidation. The police
F
investigated the matter. Respondents were charged for
commission of offences punishable u/ss. 379, 468, 471,
420 and 506 (ii) IPC. They filed application u/s. 482 Cr.P .C.
for quashing of the criminal proceedings. High Court
allowed the application holding that there was no forgery G
of documents and the grievance, if any of the
complainant would have to be redressed through the civil
forum or the company law board. Hence the present
appeal.
583
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 16 S.C.R.
A
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not
the rule. The Section does not confer any ne~ powers
8
on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which
the Court possessed before the enactment 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
C ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay
down 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
D apart from express provisions of law .which are
necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties
imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which
finds expression in ~he section which merely recognizes
and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All
E courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence
of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution,
ali such powe'rs as are necessary to do the right and to
undo a· wrong in course of administration· of justice on
the principle "quando Jex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere
F · 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). While exercising powers under the
section, the court does not function as a court of appeal
or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section
G though wide 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. It is
to be ex·ercised ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone
H courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement
•
M. VISWANATHAN v. S.K. TILES & POTTERIES P. LTD. 585
& ORS.
-I'
of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that A
authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power
to prevent 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 court would be justified to quash any proceeding B
if it 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
G
sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the
mExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.