MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (D) THR. LRS. versus SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 15-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR
 v.
SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR
(Criminal  Appeal No. 238 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 15, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 – Petition under – Seeking quashing of criminal
proceeding initiated u/ss. 405, 406, 415 and 420 IPC – Rejected by
High Court – On appeal, held: High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction
u/s. 482 is required to examine whether the averments in the
complaint, taken on their face, constitute ingredients necessary for
an offence alleged – The complaint in the present case is bereft of
the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged u/ss.
405, 406, 415 and 420 IPC – An attempt has been made by the
complainant to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature – The
complaint constitutes an abuse of process of court and therefore is
liable to be quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 405,406, 415 and
420.
On the private complaint of respondent No.1, FIR u/ss.
405, 406, 415 and 420 r/w s.34 IPC was lodged. The case of the
complainant (respondent No.1) was that the civil suit filed by the
son of the appellants for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs given to her
(respondent No.1) by the son of the appellants was without any
merit as the same has been returned by respondent No.1 to the
appellants. She alleged that the appellants and their son had
colluded to siphon the money.
Appellants’ petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing
of the FIR was rejected and the criminal proceedings were stayed
till the disposal of the civil suit. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. saves the inherent
power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the
ends of justice. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is required to examine whether
MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (D) THR. LRS. v. AHSANUL GHANI
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 185
185
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients
necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the
averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients
necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be
quashed under Section 482.  The complaint must be examined as
a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though
the law does not require that the complaint reproduces the legal
ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain
the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the
Penal Code. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must
examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint
constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
[Paras 11, 12 and 16][191-B, D-E, 193-G]
1.2 The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise
of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter
which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a
criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a
criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the
complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will
constitute an abuse of the process of the court.  [Para 23][198-D]
Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC
736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704 – relied on.  
2.1 In the present case, the first respondent has alleged
in the complaint that the appellants have committed offences
under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the
Penal Code.  It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no
amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the
appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first
respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated
by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to
the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants’
son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have
been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son.
A plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients
necessary for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and
186
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
420 of the Penal Code are not made out. Thus, the complaint in
the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute
the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the
Penal Code. [Paras 20 and 21]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.