P.S. MEHERHOMJI versus K.T. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 14-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 51 
P.S. MEHERHOMJI 
v. 
K.T. VIJAY KUMAR & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2211 of 2014) 
OCTOBER 14, 2014 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Power 
under - Object and Scope of - Held: s. 482 empowers the 
High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse C 
of the process of court - But such power should be exercised 
only in abuse where the complaint does not disclose any 
offence or is vexatious or oppressive - High Court should not 
normally interfere with order taking cognizance of offence u/ 
s. 499 /PC, if complaint is supported by statement of D 
complainant on oath and necessary ingredients of offence are 
disclosed - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 499. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Judicial process should not be an .E 
instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The 
court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising 
discretion and should take all the relevant facts and 
circumstances into consideration before issuing process 
lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private 
F 
complainant as vendetta to harass the persons 
needlessly. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case 
is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the 
Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he 
has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law 
G 
applicable thereto. [Paras 12 and 13] [57-G-H; 58-A-8] 
2.1 Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to 
exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
process of court and to quash the proceeding instituted 
on complaint but such power could be exercised only in 
cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence 
or is vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in 
the complaint do not constitute the offence of which 
B 
cognizance is taken the Magistrate, it is open to the High 
Court to quash the same in exercise of power under 
Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 13] [58-8-C] 
2.2 The High Court should not normally interfere with 
the order taking cognizance of offence u/s. 499 IPC, if on 
C consideration of the allegations, the complaint is 
supported by a statement of the complainant 01n oath and 
the necessary ingredients of the offence are disclosed. 
In the facts of the case, the High Court rightly refused to 
quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power u/ 
D 
s. 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14 and 22] [58-D-E; 64-C] 
Ohanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. 1990 
(Supp) SCC 686: 1989 Suppl. SCR 165; Chand Ohawan 
vs. Jawahar Lal and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 1379: 1992 (2) 
E 
SCR 837; Radhey Shyam Kemka vs. State of Bihar (1993) 
3 SCC 54 1993 (2) SCR 699; Mushtaq Ahmad vs. Mohd. 
Habibur Rehman Faizi and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 441 - relied 
on. 
State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammad Masood & 
F 
Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 787: 2009 (12) SCR 275; Thermax 
Limited & Ors. vs. K. M. Johny & Ors. (2011) 13 SCC 412: 
2011 (14) SCR 154 ; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. 
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692: 1988 
G 
H 
(2) SCR 930 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (12) SCR 275. 
referred to 
2011 (14) SCR 154 
referred to 
Para 11 
Para 11 
• 
• 
P.S. MEHERHOMJI v. K.T. VIJAY KUMAR 
53 
1988 (2) SCR 930 
referred to 
Para 11 
A 
Suppl. SCR 165 
relied on 
Para 15 
1992 (2) SCR 837 
relied on 
Para 16 
1993 (2). SCR 699 
relied on 
Para 16 
B 
(1997) 1 sec 441 
relied on 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2211 of 2014. 
· 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.12.2009 in CRLP 
C 
No. 3917/2007 3917/2007, of the High Court of Judicature at 
Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra 
Pradesh. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, L. Nidhiram Sharma, 
D 
Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Appellant. 
G.VR. Choudhary, K. Shivraj Chaudhuri, A. Chandra 
Sekhar, Guntur Prabhakar, (for D. Mahesh Babu) for the 
Respodents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 5.12.2009 
passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in 
Criminal Petition No.3917 of 2007, whereby the High Court 
dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant and 
respondent no.4 herein, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing 
proceedings in C.F.No.2425 of 2007 on the file of 1st Additional 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada relating to offence 
G 
under Section 499 of the India
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.