PRATIBHA versus RAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1038 · Decided: 17-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRATIBHA 
v. 
RAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 200T 
B 
(A.KMATHURANDTARUNCHATIERJEE,JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
s. 482~lnherent Power of High Court-Jn quashing FIR-Scope and 
C ambit of-Held : Power. u!s 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the 
rarest of rare cases-While exercising such power, Court cannot quash FIR 
by going beyond the allegations made in FIR or by relying on extraneo.!'s 
considerations viz. on the Report of the Police investigation. __ _ 
D 
ss. 173(2) and 482-Jnvestigation Report-Direction of High Court to 
file the same before it-Jn exercise of its power u!s 482 Cr.P.C.::_Held: Such 
direction is beyond the power of High Court-Such Report has to be 
forwarded to the concerned Magistate. 
Court Proceedings-Civil vis-a-vis Criminal proceedings-Held.; Both 
E the proceedings are separate and independent-Pendency of civil proceeding 
cannot bring a criminal proceeding to an end-Even if both arise o~t of the 
same set of facts. 
Appellant was married to respondent No. 2. Appellant left her 
matrimonial home. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 (husband) filed a petition for 
F divorce. Six months after leaving the matrimonial home, and also after filing 
of the divorce petition, appellant (wife) lodged an FIR alleging offences u/s 
498A and 406 IPC against the respondents. ~espondents seeking quashing 
of the same in application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. During pendency of the petition, 
final Investigation Report was submitted to the High Court. High Court on 
the basis of the Report concluded that no offence u/s 498A and 406]PC was 
G 
H 
made out, and it also held that quashing was necessary in view of.pending 
divorce petition. 
The question for consideration, in appeal to this Court was (1) whether 
the High Court, while quashing the FIR in exercise of its inherent powers 
1038 
L 
r 
PRA TIBHA v. RAMESHWARI DEVI 
1039 
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. was entitled to go beyond the complaint? (2) whether High A 
Court was entitled to look into and consider the Investigation Report for 
quashing the FIR, even before the same could be filed before the concerned 
Magistrate? 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The power under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised 
sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. The present case did not warrant 
such exercise by the High Court. (Para 10) (1050-H) 
B 
2. While exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not open to 
the High Court to rely on the report of the investigating agency nor can it C 
direct the report to be submitted before it as the law is very clear that the 
report of the investigating agency may be accepted by the Magistrate or the 
Magistrate may reject the same on consideration of the material on record. 
High Court has erred in quashing the FIR on consideration of the investigation 
report submitted before it even before the same could be submitted before the D 
Mag.istrate. High Court in quashing the FIR in the exercise of its inherent 
powers under Section 482 of the Code by relying on the investigation report 
and the findings made therein has acted beyond its jurisdiction. For the 
purpose of finding out the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court 
was only required to look into the allegations made in the complaint or the 
FIR and to conclude whether a prima facie offence had been made out by the E 
complainant in the FIR or the complaint or not. (Para 9) (1050-D, E, F, G) 
3. The Court is entitled to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for 
quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR when the allegations made in the 
same do not disclose the commission of an offence and that it depends upon 
the facts and circumstances of each particular case. (Para 6) [1044-G) 
F 
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (19821 1 SCC 561; 
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 370; Madhavrao Jiwaji 
Rao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors., (1988) 1 
SCC 692; State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 655 and G 
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992( Suppl. 1SCC335, relied on. 
4. High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 
has gone beyond the allegations made in the FIR and has acted in excess of 
its jurisdiction and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing 
the FIR by going beyond the allegations made in the FIR or by relying on H 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.; 
' 
~ 
I 
~ 
• 
[2.007] ,9 _S.C.R. 
A extraneous considerations. In t

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