N. SOUNDARAM versus P.K. POUNRAJ & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 17-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 1108 
N. SOUNDARAM 
v. 
P.K. POUNRAJ & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2266 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 17, 2014 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Code of criminal procedure, 1973: 
c 
s.482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court 
- FIR for offences punishable u/ss 147, 342, 395 and 450 /PC 
- An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if 
the a/legations have some substance - Power uls 482 has 
to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse 
of process of court and to secure the ends of justice - An 
Ol(eral/ perusal of the materials placed in the instant case, 
makes out a prima facie case against accused which requires 
to be decided by conducting a proper trial - Impugned order 
passed by High Court is set aside - Penal Goode, 1860 -
ss.147, 342, 395 and 450. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has to be 
exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse 
of process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. 
The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a 
legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain 
from giving a prima facie-decision unless there are 
compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the 
allegations and the complaint as they were, without 
adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made 
out, only then the High Court would be justified in 
quashing th~ proceedings in the exercise of its power u/ 
s 482, Cr.P.C. An investigation should not be shut out at 
1108 
N. SOUNDARAM v. P.K. POUNRAJ & ANR. 
1109 
the threshold if the allegations have some substance. 
A 
[para 14) [1115-D-F] 
State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal 1991 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 387 =1992(1) SCC (Supp.) 335; Municipal Corpn. of 
Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 (1) SCR 884 = (1983). 1 
8 
SCC 1; Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora (2013) 10 SCC 
581 - relied on . 
. 1.2. An overall perusal of the materials placed in the 
instant case, makes out a prima facie case against the 
accused which requires to be decided by conducting a 
C 
proper trial. Just because the allegations involve the 
factum of recovery of money it cannot be concluded that 
the complaint is purely civil in nature when the other 
serious allegations prima facie attract the penal 
provisions. This is not the stage to decide whether there 
D 
is any truth in the allegations made, but to form an 
opinion whether on the basis of the allegation a 
cognizable offence alleged has been prima facie made 
out. The guilt or otherwise of the accused can be proved 
only after conducting a full fledged trial. In the 
E 
circumstances, it was not proper for the High Court to 
have interfered with the proceedings and quashed the 
final report submitted by the police, which resulted in 
miscarriage of justice. The impugned order passed by 
the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings 
F 
against respondent No.1 are restored. [para 15-17) [1115-
G-H; 1116-C-F] 
- -
Case Law Reference: 
1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 387 relied on 
1983 (1) SCR 884 
r~lied on 
(2013) 10 sec 581 
relied on 
para 14 - G 
para 14 
para 14 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2266 of 2014. 
H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2012 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Original Petition No. 
8345 of 2004. 
Sumita Hazarika, lpsita Behura, Siddhartha Dave, Shruti 
8 Iyer, Kanchan, Senthil Jagadeesan for the Appellant. 
c 
M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order 
dated 25th September, 2012 of the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court 
D allowed the appeal of the Respondent No. 1 (accused) filed 
under Section 482, Cr.P.C. quashing the final report filed by 
the police against him in Crime No. 889 of 1996 pending 
before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ill, Salem. 
E 
3. The brief facts of the case, sans unnecessary details, 
are that on 20th September, 1996 the appellant herein lodged 
a complaint with the Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem, 
Tamilnadu to the effect that on the preceding day at about 11 
a.m. about 25 persons, sent by the accused-Respondent 
F No.1, armed with deadly weapons entered her residence, 
forcibly tied her and her mother-in-law and locked them up in a 
room. Then they went into th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.