LexR. P. KAPUR versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Ig6o March 25. 388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] R. P.KAPUR v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB ( P .B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Criminal Trial-Quashing of proceedings-Inherent power of High Court-When to be exercised-Code of Criminal Procedure, r898 (V .9f I898), s. 56I-A. • One S lodged a first information report against K. When K found that no action was taken on the report for several months he filed a criminal complaint against S contending that the report lodged by S was false. At the instance of S the magistrate ordered K's complaint to stand adjourned till the police made its final report on the first information report. Thereupon K moved the High Court under s. 56r-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. Pending the hearing the police submitted its report under s. r73 of the Code. Subsequently the High Court dismissed the peti- tion. K obtained special leave and appealed: Held, that no case for quashing the proceedings was made out. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The following are some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings: (i) where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged ; and . (iii) where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or mani- festly failed to prove the charge. In exercising its jurisdiction under s. 56r-A of the Code the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not. In the present case there was no legal bar to the institution of the proceedings or to their continuance; the allegations made in the first information report did constitute the offences alleged and it C?uld not be contended that on the face of the record the charge was unsustainable. In re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar, A.LR. r928 Born. r84, Jagat Chandra Mozu.mdar v. Queen Empress, (r899) LL.R. 26 Cal. 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1954) 56 Punj. L.R. 54, Nripendra Bhusan Ray v. Govind Bhandhu Majum- dar, A.LR. r924 Cal. ro18 and Ramanathan Chettiar v. K. Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar, (1924) LL.R. 47 Mad. 722, referred to. S.P. faiswal v. The State, (r953) 55 Punj. L.R. 77, distin- guished. • .. , - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 389 CRIMINAL APPELJ,ATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 217of1959. R. P. Kapur Appeal by special leave from the judgment and v. order dated September 10, 1959 of the Punjab High state of Punjab -Court in Criminal Misc. No. 559 of 1959. Appellant in person. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab, Mohinder Singh Punnan, T. M. Sen and D .. Gupta, for the respondent. 1960. March 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-On December 10, 1958, Mr. Gajendragadkar ], M. L. Sethi lodged a First Information Report against • the appellant Mr. R. P. Kapur and alleged that he and - • his mother-in-law Mrs. Kaushalya Devi had committed offences under ss. 420-109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. When the appellant found that for several months no further action was taken on the said First Information Report which was hanging like a sword over his head he filed a crimihal complaint on April 11, 1959, against Mr. Sethi under ss. 204, 211 and /385 of ..,,.. ,. . -~ the Indian Penal Code and thus took upon himself the onus to prove that the First Information Report lodged by Mr. Sethi was false. On the said complaint Mr. Sethi moved that the proceedings in question should be stayed as the police had not made any report on the First Information Report lodged by him and that the case started by him was still pending with the police. After hearing arguments the learned Magistrate ordered t_hat the appellant's complaint should stand adjourned. Thereupon the appellant moved the Punjab High Court under s. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings - initiated by the First Information Report in question. Pending the hearing of the said petition. in the said High Court the po
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.