PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU versus KOWURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 29-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 623 
~ 
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU 
.A 
v. 
KOWURI SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2011) 
~ 
JULY 29, 2011 
B 
" 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Scope of -
Discussed - Chargesheet filed for commission of offences u/ 
ss.120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w. s.149, /PC - Criminal c 
proceedings commenced against A-1 to A-12 - Petition by 
A-1 to A-3 for quashing of proceedings, allowed by High Court 
- On appeal, held: In a criminal proceeding instituted on a 
~ 
complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the 
proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint D 
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or 
oppressive - There is no need to analyse each and every 
aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the 
case would end in conviction or acquittal - The complaint has 
to be read as a whole - In the instant case, perusal of entire 
E 
complaint, materials collected and stated in the form of 
chargesheet, statement of witnesses did not lead to 
presumption that there was no legal and acceptable evidence 
;t 
in support of prosecution - High Court exceeded its power in 
quashing the criminal proceedings on the erroneous 
F 
assumption that the ingredients of the offence alleged by the 
prosecution were not made out - High Court also committed 
an error in assuming that with the materials available, the 
prosecution could not end in conviction - The impugned order 
quashing the criminal proceedings against A 1 to A-3 is set G 
' 
aside - Trial Court directed to proceed with the case against 
A 1 to A-3 in accordance with law - Penal Code, 1860 -' 
ss.120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w. s.149. 
The prosecution case was that A-1 and A-2 had 
623 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A political rivalry with the appellant. A-1 and A-2 hired A-4 
• 
for killing the appellant. A-4 hired A-5 to A-12 for the said 
purpose and they conspired together and hatched a plan 
to assault the appellant. A-3 was entrusted with the 
responsibility of giving information about the movements 
B of the appellant. 
On the day of incident, the appellant was travelling 
in his car with his wife and children. A-4, A-7 to A-12 who 
were in Scorpio car came across his car. In the 
C meanwhile, A-5 and A-6 also came there on motorcycle 
belonging to A-2. A-4 and A-12 broke the windowpanes 
of the car of the appellant while A-5 sprinkled chilly 
powder into the eyes of the appellant and attacked him 
with rods and sticks and caused injuries on vital parts of 
his body which resulted in bleeding. Thereafter A-4 to A12 
D left the spot. The appellant somehow managed to escape 
from the place of the incident and went to the house of 
L.W.6 who admitted him in the hospital and informed the 
incident to the police. Chargesheet was filed against A-1 
to A-12 under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 r.w. 
E Section 149, IPC. When the case was pending for trial, A-
1-3 filed petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the 
proceedings against them. The High Court allowed the 
petition and quashed the proceedings. 
F 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeal was whether the High Court was justified 
in quashing the criminal proceedings against the 
Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by invoking jurisdiction 
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
G 1973. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure deals with inherent power of High Court. This 
H section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure 
) 
t 
, I 
PADAL VENKATA RAMA REDDY @ RAMU v. KOWURI 625 
SATYANARAYANA REDDY 
(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable A 
to render complete justice even if in a given case the 
illegality was palpable and apparent. This section 
envisages three circumstances in which the inherent 
jurisdiction may be exercised, namely to give effect to 
any order under Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process B 
of any court; to secure the ends of justice. Though the 
High Court has inherent power and its scope is very wide, 
it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised in 
exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the 
High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but c 
also courts of justice and possess inherent powers to 
remove injustice. The inherent power of the High Court 
is an inalienable at

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